Nemo.js vs QMetry

Overview

Nemo.js

Stacks3

Followers24

Votes0

GitHub Stars8

Forks4

QMetry

Stacks15

Followers34

Votes0

Nemo.js vs QMetry: What are the differences?

Introduction

When choosing between automation testing tools like Nemo.js and QMetry, it's important to understand their key differences to make an informed decision. Below are the specific distinctions between Nemo.js and QMetry.

Programming Language Support: Nemo.js primarily supports Node.js for automation testing, whereas QMetry offers support for a wider range of programming languages such as Java, Python, Ruby, and C#. This difference gives QMetry an edge when teams are working in diverse tech stacks.
Report Generation: Nemo.js provides detailed reports using built-in modules like mocha and allure, making it easier for teams to analyze test results effectively. On the other hand, QMetry comes with its reporting feature that allows customization and integration with third-party tools for more comprehensive reporting.
Community Support: Nemo.js has a relatively smaller community compared to QMetry, which means troubleshooting and finding resources might be more challenging for users. QMetry, being a popular tool for test management, has a larger user base, active forums, and extensive documentation available online for support.
Integration Capabilities: Nemo.js offers seamless integration with npm packages, Selenium, and other tools commonly used in the Node.js ecosystem. QMetry, on the other hand, provides integrations with popular CI/CD tools like Jenkins, Bamboo, and TeamCity, which allows for smooth automation across the development pipeline.
Licensing Model: Nemo.js is an open-source automation tool, which makes it cost-effective for small to medium-sized teams or individual developers. QMetry, on the other hand, follows a commercial licensing model, which might be more suitable for enterprises looking for robust test management capabilities and support.
Test Execution Modes: Nemo.js focuses on parallel test execution out of the box, enabling faster testing of scenarios across multiple browsers and devices simultaneously. In contrast, QMetry supports sequential and parallel test execution modes, giving teams the flexibility to choose the most suitable approach based on their requirements.

In Summary, understanding the specific differences between Nemo.js and QMetry in terms of programming language support, report generation, community support, integration capabilities, licensing model, and test execution modes can help teams make the right choice for their automation testing needs.

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)

Manual

Detailed Comparison

Nemo.js	QMetry
Nemo provides a simple way to add selenium automation to your NodeJS web projects. Provides plugin architecture to incorporate custom features to your tests.	It offers agile testing solutions for QA teams to automate testing. Use it to shorten software testing cycles
Nemo.js wraps around the ubiquitous Selenium WebDriver, and as such, allows control of virtually any browser on any operating system;Built with a plugin architecture;Easy interface for authoring new plugins that can then be shared with others	TEST PLAN MANAGEMENT; TEST CASE ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT; TEST EXECUTION MANAGEMENT; TEST DATA MANAGEMENT; DEFECT MANAGEMENT; CHANGE MANAGEMENT; RELEASE & BUILD MANAGEMENT.
Statistics
GitHub Stars 8	GitHub Stars -
GitHub Forks 4	GitHub Forks -
Stacks 3	Stacks 15
Followers 24	Followers 34
Votes 0	Votes 0
Pros & Cons
No community feedback yet	Cons 1 Some terms and processes are confusing 1 Slow and clunky
Integrations
Selenium	TestFlight UserTesting Jira TestNG

What are some alternatives to Nemo.js, QMetry?

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 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

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 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.

Karma

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.

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 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 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.

Testrail

TestRail helps you manage and track your software testing efforts and organize your QA department. Its intuitive web-based user interface makes it easy to create test cases, manage test runs and coordinate your entire testing process.

TestingBot

TestingBot provides automated and Manual cross browser testing in the cloud. Make sure your website looks ok in all browsers.

Related Comparisons

Nemo.js vs QMetry: What are the differences?

Introduction

Programming Language Support: Nemo.js primarily supports Node.js for automation testing, whereas QMetry offers support for a wider range of programming languages such as Java, Python, Ruby, and C#. This difference gives QMetry an edge when teams are working in diverse tech stacks.
Report Generation: Nemo.js provides detailed reports using built-in modules like mocha and allure, making it easier for teams to analyze test results effectively. On the other hand, QMetry comes with its reporting feature that allows customization and integration with third-party tools for more comprehensive reporting.
Community Support: Nemo.js has a relatively smaller community compared to QMetry, which means troubleshooting and finding resources might be more challenging for users. QMetry, being a popular tool for test management, has a larger user base, active forums, and extensive documentation available online for support.
Integration Capabilities: Nemo.js offers seamless integration with npm packages, Selenium, and other tools commonly used in the Node.js ecosystem. QMetry, on the other hand, provides integrations with popular CI/CD tools like Jenkins, Bamboo, and TeamCity, which allows for smooth automation across the development pipeline.
Licensing Model: Nemo.js is an open-source automation tool, which makes it cost-effective for small to medium-sized teams or individual developers. QMetry, on the other hand, follows a commercial licensing model, which might be more suitable for enterprises looking for robust test management capabilities and support.
Test Execution Modes: Nemo.js focuses on parallel test execution out of the box, enabling faster testing of scenarios across multiple browsers and devices simultaneously. In contrast, QMetry supports sequential and parallel test execution modes, giving teams the flexibility to choose the most suitable approach based on their requirements.

Nemo.js vs QMetry

Overview

Nemo.js vs QMetry: What are the differences?