SpecFlow vs. TestMu AI

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
SpecFlow
Score 10.0 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
TestMu AI
Score 8.9 out of 10
Mid-Size Companies (51-1,000 employees)
TestMu AI (Formerly LambdaTest) is a Full Stack Agentic AI Quality Engineering platform that uses end-to-end AI agents to plan, author, execute, and analyze software quality. The platform enables testing of web, mobile, and enterprise applications at any scale across real devices, real browsers, and custom real-world environments.
$19
per month per user
Pricing
SpecFlowTestMu AI
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Live
$19
per month Parallel Test
Real Device (Includes Live)
$35
per month Parallel Test
Web & Mobile Browser Automation
$119
per month Parallel Test
Native App Automation
$149
per month Parallel Test
Web & Mobile Browser on Real Device
$158
per month Parallel Test
HyperExecute Cloud (Multi OS)
$199
per month Parallel Test
SmartUI Visual Regression
$219
per month Parallel Test
Enterprise
Custom Pricing
Parallel Test
HyperExecute On-Premise
Custom Pricing
per parallel test
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
SpecFlowTestMu AI
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsDiscount available for annual pricing.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
SpecFlowTestMu AI
Best Alternatives
SpecFlowTestMu AI
Small Businesses
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.5 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.5 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 6.3 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.5 out of 10
Enterprises
ignio AIOps
ignio AIOps
Score 8.1 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.5 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
SpecFlowTestMu AI
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(1 ratings)
9.1
(110 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
8.7
(7 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
9.2
(62 ratings)
Availability
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(7 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(2 ratings)
Configurability
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(1 ratings)
Contract Terms and Pricing Model
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
Ease of integration
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
Product Scalability
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
Vendor post-sale
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
Vendor pre-sale
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
SpecFlowTestMu AI
Likelihood to Recommend
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
LambdaTest Inc.
One day, I needed to test a specific issue that was occurring only on Pixel phones. I turned to LambdaTest, quickly identified the problem, and was able to fix it. There hasn't been a situation where I felt LambdaTest didn't help, it's my go-to solution for testing, as it solves many problems.
Read full review
Pros
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
LambdaTest Inc.
  • Very accessible as multiple users can be added in each subscription
  • Very reliable as it is very close to the actual device when it comes to operating system and version behavior
  • There are a lot of options for devices and browsers that users can choose from when it comes to emulating and testing
Read full review
Cons
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
LambdaTest Inc.
  • More real devices should be added like I have Samsung mobile but it was not in the list
  • It takes time in checking the link on LambdaTest if we compare with real mobiles
  • Sometimes exact results are not matching as from real mobiles
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Open Source
No answers on this topic
LambdaTest Inc.
The reason i have given the 10 points becasue the problem LambdaTest solves is providing access to all devices in one place, allowing developers to identify the same errors they would encounter on real devices. This makes life much easier, especially for developers who regularly face cross-device functionality issues. It's a big plus point that positions LambdaTest as an all-in-one solution.
Read full review
Usability
Open Source
No answers on this topic
LambdaTest Inc.
Because of the ease of use of the platform, we just save a lot of time and effort with this as its a feature rich solution, we just need to upload app binary once and for everytime we need to test on a different device we can just directly install that binary on the device without the pain of reupload.
Read full review
Reliability and Availability
Open Source
No answers on this topic
LambdaTest Inc.
yes always available
Read full review
Performance
Open Source
No answers on this topic
LambdaTest Inc.
haven't found any glitch while using this
Read full review
Support Rating
Open Source
No answers on this topic
LambdaTest Inc.
The customer support team is very active and cooperative. Once, I contacted them in their off timings because of an issue, I got an instant reply from the executive and he resolved the issue very efficiently. This is why we have been using LambdaTest for more than two years. It is best suited for us.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
Open Source
No answers on this topic
LambdaTest Inc.
Implementation of Lambdatest was very easy for different project requirements.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
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
LambdaTest Inc.
While BrowserStack is also a well-established platform, we found LambdaTest to offer similar and even better features at reasonable pricing. LambdaTest is more cost-effective than BrowserStack. LambdaTest provides a free forever plan, while BrowserStack does not. Even manual testing plans are better priced than BrowserStack’s. In terms of UI and onboarding, we found LambdaTest more user-friendly as well.
Read full review
Scalability
Open Source
No answers on this topic
LambdaTest Inc.
not all department, but we're using for our clients
Read full review
Return on Investment
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
LambdaTest Inc.
  • Automation testing has a bit of a learning curve
  • Lack of real device keep that bug in your head if not on the website.
  • Need to wait for a while for a new OS or browser version on the contrary of immediate availability in case of owning a lab
Read full review
ScreenShots

TestMu AI Screenshots

Screenshot of an automated screenshotScreenshot of mobile-browser-testingScreenshot of automation testing on LambdatestScreenshot of some of the available integrations.Screenshot of real-time testingScreenshot of responsive testing