We performed a comparison between SpecFlow and TestRail based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial setup is easy."
"SpecFlow's best feature is the ability to add additional layers to the programming."
"One of the most valuable features of SpecFlow for us is its risk identification capabilities."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is unit testing...It is also an easy-to-use and user-friendly product that can easily adapt to any framework."
"This is a user friendly solution."
"The solution is very stable. We've never had any issues with it."
"The integration with Jira and the ability for extra configurations are the most valuable features."
"The product helps us create test cases and reports."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that there are various test case templates and test artifact maintenance."
"The ability to time test runs gives the tester the ability to compare calculated times to actual times it takes for a test case to run."
"I use the product to create test cases and share them with my team and manager."
"I use the solution for test management."
"SpecFlow would be improved with the addition of functionality reporting, which would be really helpful for automation testing."
"Regarding improvement, it would be good if SpecFlow could provide chain testing, which it currently doesn't allow."
"SpecFlow's installation and configuration can be a bit challenging due to its flexibility as an open-source tool."
"I'd prefer in TFS if we could be writing test cases, not in the old classical version. We should be writing in Gherkin and then automatically have it convert that Gherkin test case into SpecFlow feature files."
"This solution has room for improvement. For example, some particular projects need to adjust access or add additional members and this isn't always possible. Role-based access would improve this."
"With TestRail, the APIs are there, but they may not be able to easily integrate with the Jenkins."
"TestRail's user interface is not great. When you use it for the first time, you will be very uncomfortable and not know how to create test cases. It doesn't have a field for preconditions and post-conditions."
"TestRail should improve its pricing."
"It would be nice to have a description section when creating the test scenario itself so I can indicate what the configuration should be."
"TestRail by Gurock could improve by adding a defect management module tool. It would add a lot of value if I want to install it and I don't have Jira or an isolating team. For example, if I am providing a service it's separated from the development team, it then would be better to have defect management included with the test management. However, as it is now I need to be integrated with Jira or another defect management tool to complete the testing process."
"The platform needs improvement regarding performance and creating links."
"It would be nice if they would add an export to Word."
SpecFlow is ranked 9th in Test Management Tools with 4 reviews while TestRail is ranked 3rd in Test Management Tools with 21 reviews. SpecFlow is rated 7.2, while TestRail is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of SpecFlow writes "Ensures efficient testing and validation of both business and technical requirements". On the other hand, the top reviewer of TestRail writes "A tool that provides effective test management and real-time reporting capabilities". SpecFlow is most compared with Tricentis Tosca and Tricentis qTest, whereas TestRail is most compared with Zephyr Enterprise, Tricentis qTest, TFS, Tricentis Tosca and Helix ALM. See our SpecFlow vs. TestRail report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.