Comparing 7 Key Features of Cypress and Selenium

Tools

 

 

 

Selenium and Cypress are two widely used and well-regarded open-source testing tools that are designed to automate tests for web applications. They are both versatile and flexible tools that offer a range of features and capabilities that make it easier to test applications and identify any issues early in the development process.

 

In this article, We will be comparing the 7 Key Features of Cypress and Selenium tools in detail  in order to help you make an informed decision about which tool is best suited for your specific testing needs. Whether you are a seasoned testing professional or a novice just starting out, you will find valuable information in this article that will help you make the right choice.

 

 

 

 

Language Support:

 

Selenium works with several programming languages, such as Java, Python, C#, Ruby, and JavaScript. This means that it can be used by a wide range of software development engineers (SDET’s) for test, no matter what programming language they prefer. There are also a lot of third-party plugins and libraries for Selenium that can be used to expand its capabilities and support more programming languages.

Cypress is written in JavaScript and only works with JavaScript. This makes it best for SDET’s who know the language. Cypress doesn’t support any other programming languages, but its API is easy to use and makes it simple for SDET’s to start testing. Cypress also has a growing number of plugins and integrations that can be used to extend its functionality and make testing easier.

In conclusion, both Selenium and Cypress have good language support. Selenium supports multiple programming languages, and Cypress has an API for JavaScript SDET’s that is easy to use and understand.

 

Debugging Tests:

 

 

Debugging can be hard in Selenium because it doesn’t have advanced debugging features built in. Adding debug statements to the code and manually stepping through the code to find and fix bugs is a common way to debug with Selenium. This can take a long time and a better understanding of the code is needed. Also, Selenium’s reporting features are limited, which makes it hard to understand how tests turned out.

 

Cypress makes debugging much easier, and one of its best features is the ability to go back in time while debugging. Time-travel debugging lets SDET’s change the state of an application by going back in time and fixing bugs. This makes it much easier to find and fix bugs. Cypress also has a dashboard for reporting test results. This dashboard gives a clear and concise overview of the test results, making it easier to figure out what went wrong and why.

In short, Cypress makes debugging easier and more efficient with advanced features like time-travel debugging and a clear dashboard for reporting. Selenium, on the other hand, needs a deeper understanding of the code and manual debugging, which makes it less appealing to SDET’s who want debugging to be simple and straightforward.

 

Community Support:

 

 

Selenium has a large community of users and SDET’s who have been using it for a long time. There are also a lot of resources and help available. SDET’s  can easily find help and support when they need it because Selenium has many forums, blogs, and communities. Also, Selenium has been around for more than a decade, which means that people who need help can find a lot of knowledge and experience.

Cypress is a testing framework that has only been around for a few years, but it has become very popular and has a growing group of users and SDET’s. Even though Cypress’s community isn’t as big as Selenium’s, it is made up of users and SDET’s who are willing to help and support each other. Cypress also has an active online community and gives SDET’s a lot of help and resources, such as tutorials, forums, and a full documentation library.

In the end, both Selenium and Cypress have strong communities of users and SDET’s. Selenium’s community is bigger and has been around longer, while Cypress’s community is growing quickly and is very helpful.

 

Browser Support :

 

 

Selenium works with Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, and Internet Explorer, among others. This makes it possible to test applications on different browsers and platforms, making sure that they work the same way on all of them. Selenium also supports headless testing, which lets SDET’s run tests without a browser window being visible. This makes it easier to automate cross browser tests.

 

Only the most recent versions of Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and Electron are supported by Cypress. This makes it best for SDET’s who need to test applications on these browsers. Cypress does not work with other browsers, but it does offer real-time, end-to-end testing that makes it easy to find problems with an application. Cypress also has a fast and efficient testing process. Tests run right in the browser, which makes it easy to test even the most complicated apps.

In conclusion, both Selenium and Cypress have good browser support. Selenium supports a large number of browsers, while Cypress makes testing the latest versions of Chrome and Firefox fast and easy.

 

Speed of Execution:

 

 

Selenium uses WebDriver to communicate to the browser, which can slow down testing and make it less effective. Selenium is also made so that tests run in a separate process from the application. This can slow down testing and make it hard to find bugs in real time.

Cypress is made so that tests can be run right in the browser. This makes testing quick and easy. Cypress also runs tests in the same process as the application, which makes it easy to test complicated apps. Compared to Selenium, this makes testing go much faster and work better.

In conclusion, both Selenium and Cypress have strong speed of execution features. Cypress provides faster test execution while Selenium relies on a separate process and communication with the browser. This can slow down the test execution speed.

 

Automatic Waits:

 

 

Selenium does not automatically wait by default. Instead, SDET’s must use explicit or implicit wait functions to wait for elements to load before moving on to the next step in the test. This can make testing slow and inefficient, especially for applications with a lot of features.

Cypress has automatic waiting, so tests do not have to wait for elements to load or for certain conditions to be met. This makes testing go faster and be more effective. Cypress also waits for XHR and other network requests to finish on its own. This makes it easier to test applications that use network requests.

In conclusion, both Selenium and Cypress have good automatic waiting features. Automatic waiting is built into Cypress, while Selenium needs explicit or implicit wait functions.

 

Test Reporting:

 

 

Selenium’s reporting features are limited, and there is no built-in help for making reports. To make reports, SDET’s usually have to use third-party tools or write their own code. This can take a lot of time and may not give SDET’s the level of detail and insight they need. Selenium also doesn’t give real-time updates on test results, which makes it hard to figure out what went wrong.

 

Cypress has a reporting dashboard that shows the results of tests as they happen in real time. The dashboard gives a clear and concise summary of how the tests went, including what went wrong and why. Cypress also gives screenshots and videos of the tests, which makes it easier to understand how the app works and find bugs.

 

Cypress makes reporting faster and easier by giving real-time updates, detailed information, and visual tools like screenshots and videos. Selenium, on the other hand, doesn’t have as many reporting options and needs custom code or third-party tools to make reports. This makes it less appealing to engineers who want a more complete reporting experience.

 

 

In conclusion, Selenium and Cypress are two of the most popular open-source testing tools used for automating tests for web applications. Both tools offer a range of features and capabilities that make it easier to test applications and identify any issues early. However, as with any tools, each has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the choice between the two will depend on the specific  requirements of the project.