mocha vs playwright
Side-by-side comparison of mocha and playwright
- Weekly Downloads
- 12.1M
- Stars
- 22.9K
- Gzip Size
- 95.1 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 1d ago
- Open Issues
- 226
- Forks
- 3.1K
- Unpacked Size
- 2.3 MB
- Dependencies
- 19
- Weekly Downloads
- 34.4M
- Stars
- 82.3K
- Gzip Size
- 820.6 kB
- License
- Apache-2.0
- Last Updated
- 1d ago
- Open Issues
- 596
- Forks
- 5.1K
- Unpacked Size
- 3.7 MB
- Dependencies
- 8
Download Trends
Verdict
Mocha is designed for unit and integration testing, making it an ideal choice for developers looking for a straightforward test framework. Its flexibility and popularity cater to a wide range of testing needs, particularly in the JavaScript ecosystem, where it has gained significant traction among developers seeking a fun and effective testing solution.
On the other hand, Playwright excels in automating end-to-end browser testing, providing a high-level API that simplifies interaction with multiple browsers. This makes it suitable for teams focused on web application testing, especially those requiring a robust solution that can handle complex user interactions across different browsers.
When choosing between the two, consider the scale and scope of your testing needs. For smaller projects or unit tests, Mocha's simplicity may be sufficient, while Playwright is better suited for larger applications where thorough browser testing and automation are critical.
Detailed Comparison
| Criteria | mocha | playwright |
|---|---|---|
| License | MIT license allows for broad usage. | Apache-2.0 license also supports wide usage with certain requirements. |
| Version | Latest version is 11.7.5. | ✓Latest version is 1.58.2. |
| Categories | Focused on Testing. | Also under Testing but with end-to-end emphasis. |
| Description | Simple and flexible testing framework. | ✓High-level API for automating web browsers. |
| Open Issues | ✓225 open issues may indicate ongoing discussions and improvements. | 595 open issues could suggest a larger scope of challenges. |
| GitHub Forks | 3.1K forks suggest good community engagement. | ✓5.1K forks show even more engagement and usage for experimentation. |
| GitHub Stars | 22.9K stars reflect a solid community appeal. | ✓82.3K stars indicate a significantly larger community. |
| Unpacked Size | ✓2.3 MB makes it lightweight. | 3.7 MB indicates a larger footprint due to more features. |
| Target Audience | Developers seeking simple test solutions. | Teams needing comprehensive end-to-end testing tools. |
| Weekly Downloads | 12.0M weekly downloads indicate strong usage. | ✓35.2M weekly downloads show even higher adoption. |
| Bundle Size (gzip) | ✓95.1 kB is minimal and efficient. | 820.6 kB reflects the complexity of browser automation. |