Random testing is a basic software testing technique that can be used to assess the software reliability as well as to detect software failures. Adaptive random testing has been proposed to enhance the failure-detection capability of random testing. Previous studies have shown that adaptive random testing can use fewer test cases than random testing to detect the first software failure. In this paper, we evaluate and compare the performance of adaptive random testing and random testing from another perspective, that of code coverage. As shown in various investigations, a higher code coverage not only brings a higher failure-detection capability, but also improves the effectiveness of software reliability estimation. We conduct a series of experiments based on two categories of code coverage criteria: structure-based coverage, and fault-based coverage. Adaptive random testing can achieve higher code coverage than random testing with the same number of test cases. Our experimental results imply that, in addition to having a better failure-detection capability than random testing, adaptive random testing also delivers a higher effectiveness in assessing software reliability, and a higher confidence in the reliability of the software under test even when no failure is detected
