HeadSpin vs. SpecFlow

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
HeadSpin
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
HeadSpin is a Digital Experience AI Platform that combines a global device infrastructure, test automation, and ML-driven performance and quality of experience analytics. HeadSpin is designed to empower engineering, QA, operations, and product teams to assure optimal digital experiences across all delivery channels throughout the development lifecycle.N/A
SpecFlow
Score 9.7 out of 10
N/A
SpecFlow is an open source BDD for .NET. that aims to bridge the communication gap between domain experts and developers by binding readable behavior specifications to the underlying implementation.N/A
Pricing
HeadSpinSpecFlow
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
HeadSpinSpecFlow
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
HeadSpinSpecFlow
Top Pros

No answers on this topic

Top Cons

No answers on this topic

Best Alternatives
HeadSpinSpecFlow
Small Businesses
Sentry
Sentry
Score 8.9 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.3 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Sentry
Sentry
Score 8.9 out of 10
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 7.2 out of 10
Enterprises
New Relic
New Relic
Score 8.4 out of 10
ignio AIOps
ignio AIOps
Score 8.1 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
HeadSpinSpecFlow
Likelihood to Recommend
9.8
(17 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
HeadSpinSpecFlow
Likelihood to Recommend
HeadSpin
We have been using HeadSpin for our web and mobile application testing. It is an easy-to-use solution that provides detailed and in-depth analytics from the testing results. We also get a wide range of live networks and devices to perform the testing from HeadSpin. It has an inbuilt artificial intelligence engine that helps us to get real-time scenarios simulated, which is very helpful for finding performance issues and improving the overall quality of the applications.
Read full review
Open Source
It is best suited for implementing the automated test cases in a human readable form so it's easy for non-technical members of the team and stakeholders to understand the test cases, features and the functionalities of the application. Automation of Integration tests and End to End tests are good use case. It is less appropriate or situations where the focus is only on the writing and maintenance of unit tests.
Read full review
Pros
HeadSpin
  • Keep track of each browser we have tested and when we lastly updated them.
  • Remove any deprecated code or plugins that may cause issues with other browsers.
  • Add browser information to our site’s meta tags so that the site displays correctly in different browsers.
  • Test our website on all browsers to ensure compatibility.
Read full review
Open Source
  • Versatility to be used in combination with different kinds of automated testing like automated performance testing, API testing, UI testing etc. I use JavaScript, Selenium, C#, email testing libraries, database testing libraries in combination with BDD with SpecFlow. I am able to use all these with SpecFlow to make my automation framework to be able to automate any kind of automated testing.
  • It provides different widely used runner options like NUnit, XUnit etc. Before I started to work on establishing proper test automation in my workplace, the previous automation framework (non-BDD based) as well as unit tests used NUnit runner. The transition to using BDD was smooth because we could use the same runner and there were no compatibility issues.
  • The auto-complete feature is good. I use it with Visual Studio as well as Rider and I don't have to recall the entire Gherkin statements. I just type a few words and the entire Gherkin statement implemented in framework is auto-suggested by SpecFlow. It saves time and context switching.
Read full review
Cons
HeadSpin
  • UI needs to be improved
  • Graphs on the dashboard are a bit laggy and need detailing for a better understanding of the user
Read full review
Open Source
  • SpecFlow does not accepts optional input variables in the methods defined during Gherkin statement implementation. Cucumber supports optional input variables in the methods defined during Gherkin statement implementation.
  • The tests identified while using SpecFlow with NUnit removes all white spaces in the scenario names. It makes the tests less readable. If the white spaces are not auto-removed, it would be much better for readability as well as their actual identification in the repository.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
HeadSpin
Though LambdaTest was cheaper, it did not offer the deal devices and we wanted to be 100% sure that our app offers a perfect experience to all users. Simulators and emulators are not the technology we wanted to rely on.
Read full review
Open Source
SpecFlow is .Net based which supports C#. Behave is Python based. Cucumber is Java based. Ghost Inspector is no-code based but provides very limited testing features. We wanted to implement BDD so we rued out using Ghost Inspector. Most of the developers in my team are C# experts so it was decided for everyone's comfort to go for SpecFlow rather than Behave or Cucumber. It's import to have technical experts in the language of the automation framework because there are many situations where the solutions to the test automation needs are not straightforward and implementing those requires expertise in the related programming language.
Read full review
Return on Investment
HeadSpin
  • Simplified the approach to test the mobile application on multiple devices from different vendors. This helped us to ensure the stability of the application in different environments.
  • In-depth analysis to understand the loopholes in the application design function. This helped us to improve the application design and overall user experience.
Read full review
Open Source
  • Everyone stays on the same page regarding the behavior of existing functionalities whether it be technical or non-technical individuals. So there is less need for multiple people to get involved which saves time and thus money.
  • Reusing the same code through the implemented Gherkin statement saves test automation time and thus reduces cost.
  • We combine SpecFlow with other opensource testing technologies to make our automation framework more versatile which further saves costs for us.
Read full review
ScreenShots