Bullseye vs MS code coverage tool

Question

I need to select code coverage tool between Bullseye and MS code coverage tool. I found some positive feedback for Bullseye, and I can use MS code coverage tool free. The price for Bullseye is not that much ($800/1copy for buying, and $100/1copy+1year for later years), so it will not be a problem of licensing some copies of Bullseye.

However, if MS code coverage tool can give whatever Bullseye gives, I (my company) don't need to spend unnecessary money, and if Bullseye is better than MS tools in terms of easy of use, tool integration or whatever, I'm willing to pay for Bullseye.

We'll using gtest for unit test, so the easy of integration with gtest should be a big factor for decision. We also use TFS(Team Foundation Server), so again integration with TFS can be another factor.

We develop cross-platform code, but for code coverage, we consider only Windows environment. The code is implemented with C++.

What do you think? Can you share your experience of using MS code coverage tool or Bullseye?

Answer 1

Bullseye, is so much easier to use than the MS tool. To get the MS tool to work, is painful, especially for hundreds of projects you have to build.

Answer 2

I am using Bullseye, and it is ok. Nothing spectacular, but it does the job fine. The problem is if you don't have enough licences or to setup a floating licence.

But I found other tools (testcocoon and bcov), which are free and do the same thing.

btw I am on linux, if that matters.

Answer 3

I used both, and to my understanding MS code coverage support for native C++ is quite limited. It does not work out-of-the-box, see for example this and the full details here.
I would use Bullseye for C++ and MS code coverage or NCover for .net code.