247Labs vs. Digivante vs. QA Wolf

• Reliable user testing team
• Suitable to collaborate with on project work

We've only really made use of the site health check and testing services, so I can't comment on other scenarios/services that Digivante offers at this time. Happy with the service so far.

QA Wolf is great if you want to automate the building and managing of end-to-end regression style tests. They would not be great for new feature buildouts where the tests need to be done very quickly to ship a feature or if the feature is changing rapidly, as there is at least a couple day lag to when test cases get built out. QA Wolf does not do any manual testing so that is not a good use case for the platform.

• Client relations
• Testing
• Reporting

• Creates new tests as requested fairly quickly.
• Listening and available at all times.
• Automated testing and the ease of creating tests on their platform with 0 coding experience.

• We've only touched the water with what this company has to offer so far. Potentially a minor adjustment to the customer portal, so it triggers email notifications for us as the client when there are required actions or comments on a ticket.

• QA Wolf could provide a better feedback loop for when tests are completed in order for us to have even higher confidence they are built and working as intended.
• QA Wolf could do a better job of ensuring that failing test cases are resolved in a timeline manner.

The dashboard makes it easy for us to understand what outstanding issues our product has so we can prioritize and assign work quickly to get the fixes shipped.

Used BugHerd as an extension on chrome. Used it heaps before. Also have introduced this before to other workmates

Incentivized

We chose QA Wolf for the quality of the tests that they write, their flexibility, outstanding customer support, workflow integrations, excellent infrastructure, and competitive pricing. We were not happy with the quality of the tests we were getting with ProdPerfect. We were going to evaluate MuukTest once our proof of concept with QA Wolf was completed, but we were already convinced we had what we wanted, and going with a less capable infrastructure wasn't worth the cost savings.

• Found many bugs during exploratory test cycles that could not have been caught by QA team. (no time right now to send the metrics)
• Found many critical and high bugs during regression testing that could have caused business disruption
• Hundreds of testers during cycles for 1 fixed price.

• While I am not privy to the actual financial numbers associated with our change, I can articulate what we executed. We shifted away from a third-party, off shore partnership who was supplementing our internal QA staff with contractors writing Cypress tests and the management of Cypress Cloud, to eliminating four off-shore positions and terminating our Cypress Cloud subscription in order to keep our internal staff members and partner with QA Wolf. This change has been fiscally positive for our overall business objectives.
• This change also eliminated a time zone delay in communication and oversight between our international personnel maintaining our automation suite and created a more timely update between our staff and our new partners, building confidence that our investment in automation coverage is being managed appropriately.