Top 38 Alternatives to Cypress for JavaScript/TypeScript Testing

Introduction: From Selenium to Cypress—and why teams consider alternatives

Browser automation has evolved rapidly. Selenium, first released in the mid-2000s, standardized cross-browser web automation through the WebDriver protocol and became the backbone of UI testing across organizations. Its strengths—broad browser coverage, language flexibility, and an open ecosystem—made it the default choice for many years.

Cypress arrived much later with a fresh take on test architecture. Rather than controlling the browser from the outside, it runs inside the browser process (with Node.js cooperating behind the scenes), delivering developer-friendly features such as time-travel debugging, automatic waits, and a strong JavaScript/TypeScript API. These qualities, combined with CI/CD compatibility and great documentation, made Cypress a favorite for modern SPAs and front-end teams. It’s open source with a commercial cloud option, and supports the Chromium family, with additional coverage via WebKit/Firefox in component testing.

As the testing landscape broadened—embracing mobile, APIs, performance, security, visual, accessibility, and more—teams started looking beyond Cypress. Some need capabilities Cypress does not focus on (native mobile, performance/load, or DAST). Others want different architectural trade-offs, different APIs, or low/no-code solutions. The result: a diverse set of alternatives and complementary tools worth evaluating alongside or instead of Cypress.

Overview: 38 alternatives covered in this guide

Here are the top 38 alternatives for Cypress:

• Applitools Eyes

• Burp Suite (Enterprise)

• Citrus

• Detox

• Espresso

• FitNesse

• Gauge

• IBM Rational Functional Tester

• JMeter

• JUnit

• Jest

• LoadRunner

• Mabl

• Mocha

• NeoLoad

• Nightwatch.js

• OWASP ZAP

• PIT (Pitest)

• Postman + Newman

• Protractor (deprecated)

• ReadyAPI

• Repeato

• Rest Assured

• Sahi Pro

• Selenide

• Serenity BDD

• SikuliX

• SoapUI (Open Source)

• TestCafe

• TestCafe Studio

• TestComplete

• TestNG

• UI Automator

• Vitest

• Waldo

• WebdriverIO

• axe-core / axe DevTools

• k6

Why look for Cypress alternatives?

• Cross-browser and platform needs beyond Cypress’s sweet spot: While Cypress excels in Chromium and component testing across browsers, some teams require broader, production-parity coverage (for example, native Safari/WebKit or real mobile browsers) or native mobile automation.

• Multi-app, multi-tab, and system-level flows: Complex enterprise scenarios, multiple tabs/windows, or flows crossing domains/apps may be easier with other frameworks or protocols.

• Low-code/codeless and visual testing: Some teams prefer no-code authoring, visual regression testing, or AI-assisted maintenance, which Cypress does not provide out of the box.

• Performance, security, and accessibility: Cypress focuses on functional UI and component testing; specialized tools provide load testing, DAST, and automated a11y checks.

• Team skills and tech stack alignment: Organizations heavily invested in JVM or .NET may prefer frameworks native to those ecosystems for consistency and maintainability.

Detailed breakdown of alternatives

Each alternative below includes what it is, key strengths, how it compares to Cypress, and when it is a strong fit.

Applitools Eyes

• What it is: AI-powered visual testing for web, mobile, and desktop, with cross-platform baselines and the Ultrafast Grid for parallel visual checks.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Complements rather than replaces Cypress. Cypress validates behavior; Eyes validates look-and-feel with AI-driven diffs. Can be used alongside Cypress or as part of a broader visual-first strategy.

• Best for: Front-end teams prioritizing pixel-accurate UI verification at scale.

Burp Suite (Enterprise)

• What it is: Enterprise-grade dynamic application security testing (DAST) for web and APIs.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Focuses on security vulnerabilities, not functional UI testing. Often runs in parallel with functional suites for comprehensive coverage.

• Best for: Teams embedding automated security checks into CI/CD.

Citrus

• What it is: A message-based integration testing framework for HTTP, WebSocket, and JMS.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Targets integration layers and protocols rather than browser UIs. Complements front-end tests when validating service-level workflows.

• Best for: Teams verifying service orchestration and messaging reliability.

Detox

• What it is: A gray-box end-to-end mobile testing framework for iOS and Android, with strong React Native support.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Purpose-built for native mobile apps, not web browsers. Choose Detox when mobile-first quality is critical.

• Best for: Mobile teams, especially those building React Native apps.

Espresso

• What it is: Google’s official Android UI testing framework.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Native Android focus versus web UI. Pick Espresso for reliable, fast Android instrumentation tests.

• Best for: Android teams needing deterministic mobile UI tests.

FitNesse

• What it is: A wiki-based acceptance testing platform with fixtures, enabling collaboration across engineering and business.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Emphasizes ATDD and documentation, not modern front-end DX. Often pairs with lower-level UI or API frameworks.

• Best for: Cross-functional teams practicing acceptance testing and living documentation.

Gauge

• What it is: An open-source, specification-oriented test framework (from ThoughtWorks) for web E2E with readable specs.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Offers a spec-first approach; Cypress offers a browser-first developer experience. Gauge suits teams standardizing on readable, living specs.

• Best for: Teams who want BDD-like clarity without strict Gherkin.

IBM Rational Functional Tester

• What it is: An enterprise UI automation tool for desktop and web applications.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Enterprise-focused with desktop support; Cypress focuses on modern web apps and developer-friendly DX.

• Best for: Enterprises with legacy apps and standardized IBM tooling.

JMeter

• What it is: Open-source performance/load testing for web, APIs, and many protocols.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Focuses on performance and throughput, not functional UI. Pair with Cypress for full coverage (functional + performance).

• Best for: Performance engineers running load, stress, and soak tests.

JUnit

• What it is: The foundational unit/integration testing framework for the JVM.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: JVM-oriented unit/integration testing vs. browser E2E in JS/TS. Useful where backend and services are Java-based.

• Best for: Java teams building robust unit and integration suites.

Jest

• What it is: A popular JavaScript test runner for unit, component, and light E2E scenarios.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Jest targets unit/component tests in Node.js and the browser; Cypress targets interactive E2E and component tests with a GUI runner.

• Best for: Front-end and Node.js teams seeking fast feedback on units/components.

LoadRunner

• What it is: Enterprise performance and load testing (Micro Focus/OpenText).

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Purely for performance; not a functional E2E replacement. Complements UI test suites with performance insights.

• Best for: Large enterprises running high-scale performance programs.

Mabl

• What it is: A SaaS-first, low-code/AI end-to-end testing platform for web and APIs.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: More low-code and SaaS-centric; Cypress is code-first. Mabl suits teams seeking reduced maintenance overhead.

• Best for: Product teams wanting faster authoring with less scripting.

Mocha

• What it is: A flexible JavaScript test runner for Node.js and browser environments.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Mocha excels at unit/integration orchestration; Cypress specializes in browser automation and time-travel debugging.

• Best for: Teams needing a customizable JS test runner for non-browser E2E.

NeoLoad

• What it is: Enterprise performance and load testing for web, APIs, and protocols.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Targets performance engineering. Use alongside functional suites like Cypress for end-to-end quality signals.

• Best for: Organizations running continuous performance testing.

Nightwatch.js

• What it is: A JavaScript E2E framework using WebDriver and DevTools protocols.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Nightwatch uses WebDriver/DevTools for broad browser control; Cypress runs inside the browser for a dev-centric DX. Nightwatch may fit teams prioritizing protocol-based cross-browser coverage.

• Best for: Web teams needing standard WebDriver compatibility and JS-first workflow.

OWASP ZAP

• What it is: Open-source DAST for web and APIs.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Security scanning vs. functional UI testing. Often a complementary step in the pipeline.

• Best for: Teams adding security checks to regression pipelines.

PIT (Pitest)

• What it is: JVM mutation testing that injects faults to assess test suite effectiveness.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Focuses on test rigor for JVM projects rather than UI automation. Useful for backend/service layers.

• Best for: QA/Dev teams pursuing higher confidence in Java test suites.

Postman + Newman

• What it is: API testing with Postman collections and Newman for CLI/CI execution.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: API-first testing vs. browser UI. Complements Cypress by validating backend contracts independently.

• Best for: Teams standardizing API quality gates in CI/CD.

Protractor (deprecated)

• What it is: Former Angular E2E tool, now deprecated.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Protractor is no longer recommended for new projects. Teams should migrate to modern frameworks such as Cypress alternatives or other active tools.

• Best for: Only legacy maintenance; plan migration.

ReadyAPI

• What it is: Commercial API testing for SOAP/REST/GraphQL with advanced features.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: API quality focus vs. browser E2E. Pairs well with UI suites for full-stack validation.

• Best for: API-centric teams needing enterprise features.

Repeato

• What it is: Codeless, computer-vision-based mobile UI testing for iOS and Android.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Targets native mobile with CV; Cypress targets web UIs. Use Repeato for mobile UI when selectors are volatile.

• Best for: Mobile teams preferring codeless, vision-based testing.

Rest Assured

• What it is: A fluent Java DSL for API testing over HTTP/REST.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Backend/API focus vs. browser UI. Complements front-end testing by guarding service layers.

• Best for: JVM teams building robust API regression suites.

Sahi Pro

• What it is: Commercial E2E automation for web and desktop, designed for enterprise apps.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Broader app coverage and enterprise focus; Cypress shines in modern web DX and JS/TS workflows.

• Best for: Enterprises with mixed desktop/web portfolios.

Selenide

• What it is: A fluent Java API over Selenium with built-in waits and concise syntax.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Java/WebDriver-based cross-browser testing vs. JS/TS in-browser model. Choose Selenide if your team is Java-first.

• Best for: JVM teams wanting a simpler Selenium experience.

Serenity BDD

• What it is: A BDD-oriented test framework with advanced reporting and the Screenplay pattern.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: BDD-first Java approach versus JS-centric Cypress. Serenity suits teams seeking reporting depth and BDD structure.

• Best for: QA orgs prioritizing traceability and stakeholder-readable reports.

SikuliX

• What it is: Image-based desktop automation for Windows, macOS, and Linux.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Used for desktop or image-based web automation where selectors aren’t available. Cypress is DOM-aware and web-focused.

• Best for: Desktop apps or niche web cases with non-standard UI frameworks.

SoapUI (Open Source)

• What it is: GUI-driven API testing for SOAP and REST.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: API testing vs. browser UI. Often part of a layered strategy with UI tests.

• Best for: Teams needing a free, GUI-first API tester.

TestCafe

• What it is: A JS/TS end-to-end web testing framework that runs without WebDriver.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Similar JS/TS developer focus, but TestCafe uses a different execution model outside the browser process. Offers clean cross-browser support without WebDriver.

• Best for: Web teams seeking a JS-first alternative with straightforward setup.

TestCafe Studio

• What it is: A commercial, codeless IDE variant of TestCafe.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Emphasizes codeless authoring; Cypress is code-centric. Good for teams enabling non-developers to build tests.

• Best for: QA teams adopting low-code E2E workflows.

TestComplete

• What it is: A commercial, codeless/scripted testing platform for desktop, web, and mobile.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Broader app support and low-code tooling; Cypress specializes in modern web DX and open-source workflows.

• Best for: Organizations standardizing on a single platform for desktop, web, and mobile.

TestNG

• What it is: A flexible test framework for the JVM with powerful annotations and parallelism.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: A general JVM test framework vs. JS/TS web E2E. Often underpins Selenium-based suites.

• Best for: Java projects needing advanced test orchestration.

UI Automator

• What it is: An Android system-level UI automation framework for cross-app flows.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Native mobile automation vs. browser-based testing. Pick UI Automator for complex Android device flows.

• Best for: Android teams verifying end-to-end device journeys.

Vitest

• What it is: A Vite-native test runner for unit and component testing in JS/TS.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Vitest is for unit/component tests; Cypress covers interactive E2E and component testing with a live runner.

• Best for: Vite-based front-end teams seeking speed in unit/component suites.

Waldo

• What it is: A codeless mobile testing platform for iOS and Android with cloud execution.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Native mobile focus and no-code approach. Complements or replaces web UI tests when mobile is primary.

• Best for: Product teams prioritizing mobile UX quality with minimal scripting.

WebdriverIO

• What it is: A modern JS/TS test runner over WebDriver and DevTools; can also drive mobile via Appium.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: WDIO emphasizes protocol breadth and flexibility; Cypress emphasizes in-browser DX and time-travel debugging. WDIO is great for teams needing WebDriver/Appium synergy.

• Best for: JavaScript teams seeking one runner for web and mobile.

axe-core / axe DevTools

• What it is: Automated accessibility testing for web, from Deque.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: A11y checks vs. functional E2E. Often integrated into UI test runs to catch accessibility regressions early.

• Best for: Teams embedding accessibility into definition of done.

k6

• What it is: JavaScript-based performance/load testing from Grafana.

• Strengths:

• Compared to Cypress: Performance-focused vs. functional UI testing. Pair with Cypress for end-to-end quality signals.

• Best for: DevOps and SRE teams running continuous performance tests.

Things to consider before choosing a Cypress alternative

• Scope and audience: Are you testing web UIs, native mobile apps, APIs, performance, or security? Choose tools that align with your primary quality risks.

• Language and ecosystem: Will your team be more productive with JS/TS, Java/Kotlin, or a no-code approach? Pick tools that fit your stack and skills.

• Browser and device coverage: Confirm required browsers (including WebKit/Safari) and whether you need real mobile devices or emulators/simulators.

• Setup and maintenance: Compare initial setup, test authoring speed, flake reduction techniques, and ongoing maintenance (self-healing, retries, smart waits).

• Execution speed and stability: Look for automatic waits, reliable selectors, parallel runs, and good observability of failures.

• CI/CD integration: Ensure first-class CLI, container-friendly execution, and integrations with your pipeline tools.

• Debugging and reporting: Prioritize time-travel UIs, screenshots/videos, console/network logs, and dashboards that aid root cause analysis.

• Scalability: Consider parallelism, cloud/grid options, and how the tool behaves at thousands of tests per day.

• Cost and licensing: Balance open-source benefits with potential needs for enterprise support, compliance, and advanced features.

• Community and longevity: Check activity, documentation quality, community size, and vendor commitment.

Conclusion

Cypress helped reimagine front-end testing with a developer-first experience, time-travel debugging, and smooth CI/CD integration. It remains a strong choice for modern web applications, especially SPAs written in JavaScript/TypeScript.

That said, many teams benefit from a broader toolset. If you need protocol-based cross-browser control or a single runner across web and mobile, consider WebdriverIO or Nightwatch.js. For no-code or AI-assisted maintenance, platforms like Mabl, TestCafe Studio, TestComplete, Waldo, or Repeato can reduce scripting overhead. For performance, security, accessibility, and visual quality, specialized tools like k6, JMeter, LoadRunner, OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite (Enterprise), axe-core, and Applitools Eyes complement functional tests. API-centric teams can gain speed and confidence with Postman + Newman, ReadyAPI, Rest Assured, and SoapUI. Mobile teams should look to Detox, Espresso, and UI Automator for reliable device-level automation. JVM-heavy organizations may lean on Selenide, Serenity BDD, JUnit, and TestNG for alignment with their ecosystem.

The best approach is often a balanced one: keep what Cypress does best for your web UI, and add purpose-built tools around it for APIs, performance, security, accessibility, visual verification, or native mobile. This layered strategy yields faster feedback, higher confidence, and broader coverage across the realities of modern software.