Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing Coveralls vs Codecov, the Slant community recommends Codecov for most people. In the question“What are the best code coverage services?” Codecov is ranked 1st while Coveralls is ranked 3rd. The most important reason people chose Codecov is:
Great detailed pull request comments including Codecov's Coverage Diff which breaks down coverage changes in the pull request. Comments are updated after every successful CI build.
Specs
Question Ranking
Pros
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.
Pro Detailed pull request comments
Great detailed pull request comments including Codecov's Coverage Diff which breaks down coverage changes in the pull request. Comments are updated after every successful CI build.
Pro Free version
Codecov is free for up to 5 users and open source repositories on Github, Bitbucket, and Gitlab.
Pro Grouping Coverage Reports
Codecov groups coverage reports to isolate coverage metrics. For example: unittest vs functional. Learn more here.
Pro Github commit status
Commit statuses are posted to maintain minimum coverage percentage.
Pro Coverage reports can be integrated into Github and Bitbucket with a browser extension
Overlay coverage reports directly in Github and Bitbucket for seamless integration into your workflow.
Pro Good customer support
Codecov has great customer support. Especially because it uses Intercom for communication which makes it easy to ask questions or make feature requests.
Cons
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.
Con Expensive - paid per user/month
Per-user pricing increases the pricing for us by 2600% compared to before.
Con Frequent downtime not reflected in status page
Often codecov.io URL returns 504 or 503 errors to the build scripts resulting in failed CI builds. Downtime is never reflected in their status page.
Con Node package doesn't support piped input
Most Node coverage uploaders allow you to pipe directly from a coverage tool into the coverage uploader, but Codecov seems to require that coverage is written to a file.
Con Browser extension not available for Safari
