Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing Code Climate vs Coveralls, the Slant community recommends Coveralls for most people. In the question“What are the best code coverage services?” Coveralls is ranked 3rd while Code Climate is ranked 4th. The most important reason people chose Coveralls is:
Coveralls offers unlimited free support for open source projects.
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Gives code improvement suggestions
Code Climate gives you suggestions on how to improve the code which you can catalog on Jira.
Pro Integration with team chat software
Code Climate directly integrates with team chat tools like Slack or HipChat.
Pro Shows test code coverage
Code Climate is fully integrated with test coverage statistics and metrics, giving you a complete view and understanding of them.
Pro Free for open source
Code Climate is completely free for open source projects.
Pro Free for open source
Coveralls offers unlimited free support for open source projects.
Pro Maturity
Coveralls is older than Code Climate and already supports 21 languages. It also seems like it's the most popular given how new some of the other services are, which is great for support.
Cons
Con Mostly for web development languages
Code Climate only supports web development projects at the moment. Or at least languages that are widely used in web development (JavaScript, Ruby, Python and PHP). It has no support for largely used languages like Java or C++.
Con Repository token must be set manually for open source projects
The other services tend to automatically integrate with CI services like Travis, but Code Climate requires you to copy your repo's token into your CI service's environment.
Con Web interface doesn't show hits per line
Most code coverage services show both what lines of code were run and how many times each line was run, but Code Climate only shows the former.
Con Terrible support
Con The user interface is hard to understand
Con It's defective and integration doesn't work properly
Con Poor tooling
Depending on your language the tooling is practically abandonware.
Con No support for common coverage report stadards
They accept their own format over their own HTTP API. Other services allow the uploading of standard reporting formats and parse them internally.
