Software Alternatives, Accelerators & Startups
Register | Login

EyeJS VS WD.js

Compare EyeJS VS WD.js and see what are their differences

Flagsmith
Flagsmith lets you manage feature flags and remote config across web, mobile and server side applications. Deliver true Continuous Integration. Get builds out faster. Control who has access to new features. We're Open Source. featured
Contents:
  1. » Base Details
  2. » Reviews
  3. » Alternatives

EyeJS logo EyeJS

A JavaScript testing framework for the real world.

WD.js logo WD.js

WD.js is a Node.js Webdriver/Selenium 2 client that implements the JSONWire protocol and offers Q promises with chaining and Yiwed generators to avoid nested callbacks. It also has Mocha integration.
  • EyeJS Landing page
    Landing page //
    2019-08-24
  • WD.js Landing page
    Landing page //
    2023-10-19

EyeJS features and specs

  • Simplicity
    EyeJS offers a straightforward API that makes it easy for developers to write and understand tests without a steep learning curve.
  • Speed
    It is designed to run tests quickly, reducing the time taken for feedback and allowing rapid iterations during development.
  • Lightweight
    Being a lightweight framework, EyeJS does not add significant overhead to projects and is easy to integrate without bloat.
  • Minimal Configuration
    EyeJS requires very little configuration to get started, enabling developers to focus on writing tests rather than setting up the environment.
  • Modern JavaScript Support
    It supports modern JavaScript syntax and features, allowing developers to write tests in the same style as their application code.

Possible disadvantages of EyeJS

  • Limited Features
    Compared to more established testing frameworks, EyeJS might lack advanced features that some developers may need for complex projects.
  • Community and Ecosystem
    EyeJS has a smaller community and ecosystem, which can result in fewer resources, plugins, and integrations compared to larger frameworks.
  • Documentation
    The documentation may not be as comprehensive as that of more mature projects, potentially making it harder for newcomers to resolve issues.
  • Less Adoption
    EyeJS is less widely adopted than some other testing frameworks, which may impact the availability of community support and shared knowledge.
  • Limited Test Types
    It might be more suited for simple unit tests and could struggle with more complex testing requirements, such as end-to-end testing.

WD.js features and specs

No features have been listed yet.

Category Popularity

0-100% (relative to EyeJS and WD.js)

EyeJS

WD.js

Developer Tools
100 100%
Developer Tools
0% 0
Browser Testing
0 0%
Browser Testing
100% 100
Front End Package Manager
100 100%
Front End Package Manager
0% 0
Testing
70 70%
Testing
30% 30

User comments

Share your experience with using EyeJS and WD.js. For example, how are they different and which one is better?
Log in or Post with

What are some alternatives?

When comparing EyeJS and WD.js, you can also consider the following products

Chai - Chai is a BDD / TDD assertion library for node and the browser that can be delightfully paired with any javascript testing framework.

webdriver-sync - Synchronous JavaScript wrapper around the Java Selenium Webdriver API that eliminated the need for callbacks or promises. Doesn't include any testing framework; you simply use the Selenium Java API.

Enzyme - Enzyme is a JavaScript testing utility for React.

Leadfoot -> Intern - "Leadfoot is a JavaScript client library that brings cross-platform consistency to the Selenium WebDriver API.

Ava - Making conversations accessible for the deaf

WebdriverIO - Webdriver module for Node.js. that makes it easier to write Selenium tests

Loading...