I recommend it to all. IT is a very useful tool that helps to perform tests of all kinds quickly, and obtains reliable results with high accuracy. We all have different needs, but for mine it is perfectly suited. However, it requires clear requirements before using the tool.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
Tester skill and experience is varied so it's important for the project manager to properly understand your requirements. The better they can build a team to suit your needs, the better your results will be. This will require a number of test cycles and fine tuning to get it right. It also fares better with consumer applications which are designed for the "common" user. For example, if you have a niche product designed for businesses, this type of testing may not be a good fit.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
It is very easy to use and adapt, allowing the QA to do the tests faster and detect errors in a timely manner.
It has helped us decrease development time on new applications, since we used to spend a lot time solving errors after the launch of the application.
It has helped us a lot in our testing processes, since the tool contains exploratory tests with which critical errors can be detected in an efficient and fast way. In turn, we have good follow-up on our products, thanks to the fact that the tool allows us to document the commercial flows more critically and automate them.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
The quality of the testers should be better, so that all of them produce useful, excellent results, and not just some of them.
The product could be improved with a more friendly interface and more tutorials to allow new users who do not have any kind of experience to easily adapt.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
In using MBM (Mobile Beta Management), it would be better to have the surveys be based on completion of a specific task instead of time or number of app access. This might be a little more complex to set up, but would be well worth it.
A "stakeholder management" view would be nice to allow those not normally using the tool to get a quick status of testing.
A "stakeholder management" view for MBM would be nice to allow those not normally using the tool to get a quick status of progress and user feedback.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
The one missing point is for the price - it's quite expensive to maintain the service to the extent of how we use it (dozens of test cycles and hundreds of test case hours on monthly basis). However the benefits still weights the price, especially when thinking of the price of potential hot fixes. Still, the price can be a reason to take a look on how competition is doing.
The UI and the whole app is updated on regular basis, quite often actually. There are some cool features, like integration with several other bug tracking tools, which makes the bug management really easy. However there are some key usability issues within some of the less used workflows, which brings the score down a bit. They need to work on better switching between products and better bug search, especially across purchased products.
I know the score doesn't really correspond with my earlier answers, but I have really special relationship with the Applause people. I don't really go through official support. I rather use my internal connections to make my request handled as soon as possible - and it works really well! I don't need to go through the official channels. And it's known that the unofficial ones are much more effective. I can confirm!
I didn't need to be involved at all. It was seamless from our perspective. All products were inserted in by Vendor, only Test Cycles we needed to insert ourselves initially. Now even that is handled by Vendor. The only thing we need to pay attention now is - to request cycles at the right time and review the bugs found during the test cycles. Nothing else. Very good experience!
I find 99test more useful, since it has a phone support feature that many other applications do not have, and also allows testing in Windows Phone app. Overall, it is very useful for small businesses. Also, it's price is very low, which makes it a very competitive application because it delivers equally reliable and useful results quickly, for less cost.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
By the time we signed the contract, there was no competition to Applause (back in time the company was called uTest). Ever since, we didn't evaluate anyone else because we built a very close relationship, which works for both sides. I think Applause is the furthest in building the test community
Excellent impact since it allows precise tests before launching the applications, thus preventing capital losses.
It helped us to carry a complete documentation of the tests thus reducing times.
It reduced the problems that the developers of the organization had because the tests make sure that the new functions work excellently and the old functions do not get corrupted.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
- we were able to provide good QA on an increased number of deliverables in a shorter period of time.
- great interaction with the Applause team, test leads and others
- high quality candidates added to our team
Negative
- the contract model (based on number of projects for specified monthly periods) was a little tricky for our development life cycles and left us at times wanting to engage test cycles but unable to do so while simultaneously having a project sitting idle for weeks after test cycles completed. Our business model was not a great fit for the contract model.
