Comparing actual outputs against expected ones is the ideal situation, IMHO. My own preference is for property-checking; but hard-coding a few well-chosen values is also fine.

That's made easier when writing (mostly) pure code, since the output is all we have (we're not mutating anything, or triggering other processes, etc. that would need extra checking).

I also think it's important to make sure we're checking the values we actually care about; since those might not be the literal return value of the "function under test". For example, if we're testing that some function correctly populates a table cell, I would avoid comparing the function's result against a hard-coded table, since that's prone to change over time in ways that are irrelevant. Instead, I would compare that cell of the result against a hard-coded value. (Rather than thinking about the individual values, I like to think of such assertions as relating one piece of code to another, e.g. that the "get_total" function is related to the "populate_total" function, in this way...).

The reason I find this important, is that breaking a test requires us to figure out what it's actually trying to test, and hence whether it should have broken or not; i.e. is it a useful signal that requires us to change our approach (the table should look like that!), or is it noise that needs its incidental details updated (all those other bits don't matter!). That can be hard to work out many years after the test was written!