Likelihood to Recommend 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 Well Suited for: Web Application Testing: It excels in automating tests for web applications, including e-commerce websites, CRM systems, and internal web-based tools. Its codeless approach and AI-driven test creation make it suitable for testing various web applications. Regression Testing: It is well-suited for regression testing, where existing test cases need to be executed repeatedly to ensure that new code changes do not introduce defects. Testim's self-healing capabilities help maintain test stability when the application's UI changes frequently. Cross-Browser Testing: Tricentis Testim is an excellent choice for cross-browser testing. It allows organizations to create tests that can be executed across different web browsers, ensuring consistent functionality and user experience. Not suited for: Complex Desktop Applications: Tricentis Testim is primarily designed for web application testing. It may be less appropriate for automating tests of complex desktop applications or applications that do not have a web-based UI. Highly Technical Testing Needs: Organizations with highly technical testing requirements, such as complex API testing or intricate database testing, may find Testim's codeless approach limiting. Specialized testing tools may be more appropriate.
Read full review Pros 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 Very intuitive and easy UX/UI Great support team for any question Ability to create automated tests from zero without knowing code Read full review Cons 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 Backend test has issues to perform. Cost wise perhaps, it's on the higher end Speed Read full review Usability We are using Testim all the time. Every new, big we roll out feature has tests and it is our only tool for regression tests.
Read full review Support Rating They are very helpful and responsive. If I had any issue they helped solve it, even if it was neglect on my part.
Read full review Alternatives Considered 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 Tricentis Testim provides features like Codeless Automation, Rapid Test creation, Self healing tests, parallel test execution which
Selenium lacks. Secondly Tricentis has reduced maintenance and ease of adoption.
Read full review Return on Investment 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 Insightful and efficient reporting Fast test execution Read full review ScreenShots Tricentis Testim Screenshots