# Codecov vs Coveralls

> Both turn your coverage report into pull-request checks. Codecov charges per user, Coveralls per repository, so team size decides. Prices and features compared.

Web page: https://supercov.com/compare/codecov-vs-coveralls · Published 2026-10-12
All Supercov pages for agents: https://supercov.com/llms.txt · Full text: https://supercov.com/llms-full.txt

## Codecov or Coveralls?

Both take the coverage report your tests already write and turn it into
pull-request checks, comments and history. Neither measures coverage. Both are
free for open source.

The clearest difference is how they charge for private repositories: Codecov
per user, Coveralls per repository with unlimited users. A large team with few
repositories pays less on Coveralls. A small team with many repositories pays
less on Codecov. Codecov does more for monorepos and test results; Coveralls
does less and is simpler.

## What private repositories cost

| | Codecov | Coveralls |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Open source | Free | Free |
| Free private use | 1 user, 250 uploads a month | 30-day trial |
| Paid plans | Team: $5 a user a month, up to 10 users. Pro: $12 a user a month | $10 a month for 1 repository, $50 for 10, $100 for 20, $200 for 40, $400 unlimited |
| Users | Counted | Unlimited on every plan |
| Self-hosted | Enterprise plan | Enterprise On-Prem, $25 a user a month |

Three examples at those prices:

- 3 developers, 30 repositories: $15 a month on Codecov Team, $200 on Coveralls.
- 10 developers, 10 repositories: $50 on either.
- 20 developers, 5 repositories: $240 on Codecov Pro, $50 on Coveralls.

Prices are from the [Codecov](https://about.codecov.io/pricing/) and
[Coveralls](https://coveralls.io/pricing) pricing pages on October 12, 2026.
Check them for current figures and for limits such as uploads a month.

## Reports they read

Both read lcov, Cobertura XML and JaCoCo XML, among others. See
[Codecov's list](https://docs.codecov.com/docs/supported-report-formats) and
the formats of [Coveralls' reporter](https://github.com/coverallsapp/coverage-reporter).
If you are choosing a format, see [lcov vs Cobertura](https://supercov.com/compare/lcov-vs-cobertura.md).

## Features that differ

| | Codecov | Coveralls |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Several CI jobs for one commit | [Merged automatically](https://docs.codecov.com/docs/merging-reports) | Jobs are marked parallel, then a [webhook](https://docs.coveralls.io/parallel-builds) closes the build |
| Parts of one repository | Flags set at upload, and [components](https://docs.codecov.com/docs/components) defined by path | Flags per job |
| Jobs that did not run | Carryforward flags | Carryforward flags |
| Beyond coverage | [Failed and flaky tests](https://docs.codecov.com/docs/test-analytics) from JUnit XML, and bundle analysis | Coverage only |

On Codecov some of these depend on the plan: flags and project coverage are
listed under Pro.

## The report comes first

Either service shows what your coverage tool wrote, and no more. If the report
has no branch data, neither dashboard has it. Neither shows MC/DC or which test
covered a line: Cobertura has no field for either, and lcov records MC/DC only
since version 2.

## Where Supercov fits

Supercov measures coverage; it is not a dashboard. It runs your test command
and writes a report either service reads:

```sh
npx supercov -- npm test
npx supercov runs report --format lcov --output coverage/lcov.info
```

It can also gate a pull request inside your own CI job, with no account and
nothing uploaded:

```sh
npx supercov runs check --min-lines 90 --min-branches 80
npx supercov runs patch --base origin/main --min-lines 100
```

The first fails the job below a floor. The second checks only the lines the
change touches. See [Codecov vs Supercov](https://supercov.com/compare/codecov.md) for how the two
work together.