NUnit vs Jest

Feature checklists rarely decide anything. What decides it is the pricing metric, who has to write the tests, and which limitation you can live with.

NUnitJest

Entry price

Free and open source

Open source

Free and open source

Open source

What drives the bill

The metric that actually scales your invoice.

Free and open source. You pay in engineering time and CI minutes.

Free tier

Everything, self-hosted

Open source

MIT

Self-hostable

No-code authoring

Languages

JavaScriptTypeScript

Platforms

WebAPIDesktop

WebAPI

Fits teams

Scale-up / mid-marketEnterprise

Solo / side projectStartupScale-up / mid-marketEnterprise

Adoption

Widely used

.NET Foundation · since 2002

Category standard

OpenJS Foundation · since 2014

Strengths

Everything in one dependency, with defaults that work for most projects on day one.
The largest ecosystem of matchers, reporters and framework presets in JavaScript.
Snapshot testing is genuinely useful for serialisable output when used with restraint.

Limitations

Shared test-class instances mean state can leak between tests unless you are careful.
New Microsoft templates default to xUnit, so it is drifting from the mainstream.
Attribute-heavy style feels dated.

Native ESM support remains awkward, and the Babel transform layer is a recurring configuration tax.
Noticeably slower than Vitest on large suites.
jsdom is not a browser; subtle DOM and CSS behaviour differs from reality.

Best for

Existing .NET codebases already standardised on NUnit.

Existing JavaScript codebases, React Native, and teams that value ecosystem depth over raw speed.

Pricing last reviewed August 2026 and is indicative only — confirm on each vendor’s own page.