StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. DevOps
  3. Testing Frameworks
  4. Browser Testing
  5. Karma vs Webpack

Karma vs Webpack

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Karma
Karma
Stacks4.8K
Followers603
Votes181
GitHub Stars12.0K
Forks1.7K
Webpack
Webpack
Stacks45.0K
Followers28.1K
Votes752
GitHub Stars65.7K
Forks9.2K

Karma vs Webpack: What are the differences?

Introduction

Karma and Webpack are both popular tools used in web development. However, there are several key differences between them that developers should be aware of.

  1. Module Bundling: Webpack is primarily a module bundler that allows developers to bundle different modules and assets into a single file. It helps in managing dependencies and optimizing file sizes. Karma, on the other hand, is a test runner that enables developers to execute tests across different environments. While Webpack can also be used for running tests, it is not its primary purpose.

  2. Development vs Testing: Webpack is typically used during the development process to bundle and optimize code. It provides features like hot module replacement and code splitting, making it ideal for development workflows. Karma, on the other hand, is mainly used for testing purposes. It can execute tests in various browsers and provides useful features like test result reporting and continuous integration.

  3. Configuration: Webpack requires a configuration file (webpack.config.js) to define the entry points, output paths, and other settings. It provides extensive control over how modules are bundled and transformed. Karma, on the other hand, uses a configuration file (karma.conf.js) to define the test files, test frameworks, and browser launchers. It offers flexibility in configuring testing environments and frameworks.

  4. Dev Server: Webpack includes a built-in development server that enables developers to preview their code changes in real-time. This server automatically refreshes the browser whenever a file is modified, providing a seamless development experience. Karma does not come with a built-in development server and is primarily focused on executing tests in different environments.

  5. Code Splitting: Webpack has built-in support for code splitting, which allows developers to split their application code into smaller chunks. This helps in reducing initial loading times and optimizing performance. Karma does not have native support for code splitting since it is primarily focused on testing rather than bundling.

  6. Environment Compatibility: Webpack is compatible with a wide range of environments, including browsers, Node.js, and Electron. It provides the flexibility to bundle code for different targets and environments. Karma, on the other hand, is mainly used for testing in browsers. While it can also run tests in Node.js, its primary focus is on browser compatibility.

In summary, Webpack is primarily a module bundler focused on development workflows, while Karma is a test runner primarily used for testing purposes. Webpack offers features like code splitting and a built-in development server, while Karma provides features like browser compatibility testing and test result reporting.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs
CLI (Node.js)
or
Manual

Advice on Karma, Webpack

Aleksandr
Aleksandr

Contract Software Engineer - Microsoft at Microsoft-365

Dec 23, 2019

Decided

Why migrated?

I could define the next points why we have to migrate:

  • Decrease build time of our application. (It was the main cause).
  • Also jspm install takes much more time than npm install.
  • Many config files for SystemJS and JSPM. For Webpack you can use just one main config file, and you can use some separate config files for specific builds using inheritance and merge them.
301k views301k
Comments
Abigail
Abigail

Dec 10, 2019

Decided

We mostly use rollup to publish package onto NPM. For most all other use cases, we use the Meteor build tool (probably 99% of the time) for publishing packages. If you're using Node on FHIR you probably won't need to know rollup, unless you are somehow working on helping us publish front end user interface components using FHIR. That being said, we have been migrating away from Atmosphere package manager towards NPM. As we continue to migrate away, we may publish other NPM packages using rollup.

224k views224k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

Karma
Karma
Webpack
Webpack

Karma is not a testing framework, nor an assertion library. Karma just launches a HTTP server, and generates the test runner HTML file you probably already know from your favourite testing framework. So for testing purposes you can use pretty much anything you like.

A bundler for javascript and friends. Packs many modules into a few bundled assets. Code Splitting allows to load parts for the application on demand. Through "loaders" modules can be CommonJs, AMD, ES6 modules, CSS, Images, JSON, Coffeescript, LESS, ... and your custom stuff.

Test on Real Devices;Remote Control;Testing Framework Agnostic;Open Source;Easy Debugging;Continuous Integration
Bundles ES Modules, CommonJS, and AMD modules (even combined); Can create a single bundle or multiple chunks that are asynchronously loaded at runtime (to reduce initial loading time); Dependencies are resolved during compilation, reducing the runtime size; Loaders can preprocess files while compiling, e.g. TypeScript to JavaScript, Handlebars strings to compiled functions, images to Base64, etc; Highly modular plugin system to do whatever else your application requires
Statistics
GitHub Stars
12.0K
GitHub Stars
65.7K
GitHub Forks
1.7K
GitHub Forks
9.2K
Stacks
4.8K
Stacks
45.0K
Followers
603
Followers
28.1K
Votes
181
Votes
752
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 61
    Test Runner
  • 35
    Open source
  • 27
    Continuous Integration
  • 22
    Great for running tests
  • 18
    Test on Real Devices
Cons
  • 1
    Slow, because tests are run in a real browser
  • 1
    Requires the use of hacks to find tests dynamically
Pros
  • 309
    Most powerful bundler
  • 182
    Built-in dev server with livereload
  • 142
    Can handle all types of assets
  • 87
    Easy configuration
  • 22
    Laravel-mix
Cons
  • 15
    Hard to configure
  • 5
    No clear direction
  • 2
    SystemJS integration is quite lackluster
  • 2
    Spaghetti-Code out of the box
  • 2
    Fire and Forget mentality of Core-Developers
Integrations
Jasmine
Jasmine
Mocha
Mocha
JavaScript
JavaScript

What are some alternatives to Karma, Webpack?

gulp

gulp

Build system automating tasks: minification and copying of all JavaScript files, static images. More capable of watching files to automatically rerun the task when a file changes.

Grunt

Grunt

The less work you have to do when performing repetitive tasks like minification, compilation, unit testing, linting, etc, the easier your job becomes. After you've configured it, a task runner can do most of that mundane work for you—and your team—with basically zero effort.

BrowserStack

BrowserStack

BrowserStack is the leading test platform built for developers & QAs to expand test coverage, scale & optimize testing with cross-browser, real device cloud, accessibility, visual testing, test management, and test observability.

Selenium

Selenium

Selenium automates browsers. That's it! What you do with that power is entirely up to you. Primarily, it is for automating web applications for testing purposes, but is certainly not limited to just that. Boring web-based administration tasks can (and should!) also be automated as well.

Sauce Labs

Sauce Labs

Cloud-based automated testing platform enables developers and QEs to perform functional, JavaScript unit, and manual tests with Selenium or Appium on web and mobile apps. Videos and screenshots for easy debugging. Secure and CI-ready.

LambdaTest

LambdaTest

LambdaTest platform provides secure, scalable and insightful test orchestration for website, and mobile app testing. Customers at different points in their DevOps lifecycle can leverage Automation and/or Manual testing on LambdaTest.

Playwright

Playwright

It is a Node library to automate the Chromium, WebKit and Firefox browsers with a single API. It enables cross-browser web automation that is ever-green, capable, reliable and fast.

Rainforest QA

Rainforest QA

Rainforest gives you the reliability of a QA team and the speed of automation, without the hassle of managing a team or the pain of writing automated tests.

WebdriverIO

WebdriverIO

WebdriverIO lets you control a browser or a mobile application with just a few lines of code. Your test code will look simple, concise and easy to read.

Brunch

Brunch

Brunch is an assembler for HTML5 applications. It's agnostic to frameworks, libraries, programming, stylesheet & templating languages and backend technology.

Related Comparisons

GitHub
Bitbucket

Bitbucket vs GitHub vs GitLab

GitHub
Bitbucket

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket vs GitHub

Kubernetes
Rancher

Docker Swarm vs Kubernetes vs Rancher

gulp
Grunt

Grunt vs Webpack vs gulp

Graphite
Kibana

Grafana vs Graphite vs Kibana