Coveralls vs EclEmma
| Coveralls | EclEmma | |
|---|---|---|
| Free plan | Yes | No |
| Free trial | Yes | No |
| Paid from | $10/mo | — |
| Open source | No | No |
| Platforms | api, Linux, self-hosted, Web | Windows, macOS, Linux |
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Paid from | 10 /mo | — |
| Coverage types | line, branch | instruction, branch, line, method, type, cyclomatic complexity |
| Supported languages | .NET, C/C++, D, Elixir, Erlang, FORTRAN, Go, Haskell, Java, JavaScript, Julia, Kotlin, Lisp, Lua, OCaml, Objective-C, PHP, Python, R, Ruby, Scala, Smalltalk, Swift | Java, Scala |
| Report formats | LCOV, SimpleCov, Cobertura, JaCoCo, Gcov, LuaCov, Golang, Coveralls JSON, Pytest-Cov, Clover XML | HTML, XML, CSV, JaCoCo execution data (.exec) |
| Pull-request annotations | Yes | — |
| Self-hosted option | Yes | — |
| Historical trends | Yes | — |
| Coverage gates | Yes | — |
Both are listed in Best Test Coverage Tools. On Inferse, Coveralls scores higher on our published basis.