I like the promise, and it looks nice. But I'm not sure what are the selling points.

- pytest already works with assert. Why brag about something that is already commonplace?

- It could help if your docs explained the alternative to using fixtures. I assume it would be done by re-using givens, but you could make it clearer what is the preferred way to do it, and what is gained, or lost, but doing it that way.

- Can you explain how your diff is better than the pytest diff? (I'm asking as someone who hates the pytest diff)

Thanks for the feedback, it helps me see things from a different perspective.

These are excellent questions, and you're absolutely right that they should be clear from the landing page. I'll work on fixing that.

Short answers:

1. Good point about asserts. When writing the benefits, I was targeting a broader audience (unittest users, people coming from other languages like JS), but the reality is most visitors are probably "pytest escapers" who already know pytest uses assert. I'll reorganize the selling points to focus on what actually differentiates Vedro.

2. The main philosophy is "all you need is functions and their compositions", no special decorators or dependency injection magic. But this is indeed missing from the index page. Will definitely add clear examples showing how to handle common fixture use cases with plain functions.

3. One diff example on the landing page clearly isn't enough. I'll add more comparisons. Since you hate pytest's diff output too, I'd love to hear what specifically bothers you about it, your pain points would be incredibly valuable for improving how I present Vedro's approach.