BDD Framework Comparison

‘ve just finished comparing three BDD frameworks for Java. Obviously my findings have a fairly short use-by date.


  • Very flexible
  • Very pretty report output
  • Nice plugin framework
  • Poorly documented. I had to read the source to figure it out (luckily its extremely good quality).
  • Fixtures seemed likely to end up tightly coupled to the html.


  • Very shallow learning curve (even for non-Groovy Developers)
  • Extremely powerful DBUnit integration
  • Apparently no support for parameters (leads to either very vague stories or duplication between text and code (edit: actually there is but the documentation for it was very well hidden.)
  • Story and Code are very tightly coupled (same file)
  • Very basic report output
  • Couldn’t get IntelliJ plugin to work
  • Inactive community (Maven plugin seems to have been broken for three months – not many code examples to draw on)


  • Extremely powerful and flexible (eg reduction of boiler-plate through composition of stories as pre-requisites)
  • Extensive (if fragmented) documentation and examples
  • Extensive (if overwhelming) support for different frameworks and environments
  • Excellent separation of story files from code
  • Looks to have a pretty active community and much more examples and discussion of it on web.
  • Quite a steep learning curve (took me 3-4 times longer to figure out than Concordion/EasyB)



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: