ACCELQ vs. Applitools

ACCELQ can support multiple technologies such as web, mobile, API, and mainframe. It’s also suited for SAAS solutions such as Salesforce and addresses challenges such as dynamic HTML. It’s easy to set up, and onboarding is easy, and overall lead time is comparatively less. The overall execution results are captured with screenshots, and it’s easy to debug errors. It has integrations with leading cloud-based desktop and mobile farm services such as Saucelabs, browser stack, etc.; ACCELQ is not developer friendly, and hence the overall adoption for a continuous integration scenario is very limited. If you are using a different test management solution, the integration between accelQ and that tool needs ti to be built and hence requires additional development effort, and it’s buggy too.

Incentivized

Scenarios where Applitools is well suited: Cross-browser and Cross-device Testing: Applitools shines in scenarios where applications need to be tested across multiple browsers (chrome,ie,firefox) UI Component Libraries: When working with UI component libraries or design systems, Applitools allows to capture and maintain a visual baseline for each component, Applitools may not work with highly animated sites and in non visual testing purpose

Incentivized

• Scriptless and hence coding is easy.
• Maintenance of the scripts are easy.
• Learning curve is small.

Incentivized

• visual testing
• cross browser testing
• easy integration with testing frameworks

Incentivized

• The tool is not developer friendly and hence adoption across developers is low.
• The tool does not have an admin console to manage the users centrally.
• Different types of licensing and it’s all user based and hence pricey.

Incentivized

• Test Maintenance- no built-in mechanism to automatically handle dynamic or volatile elements,
• Test Configuration Flexibility- ability to specify different tolerances or thresholds for specific test elements or regions within a single test
• Test Execution Performance- larger test suites or complex visual validations can sometimes lead to longer execution times.

Incentivized

When we implemented ACCELQ, we conducted POCs with many similar solutions. Among the tools we pursued at that time, accelQ stood out against Tricentis Tosca and QMetry automation studio. However, subject 7 did better. However, they were still in the nascent stages of building the tool, and hence we did not pick it.

Incentivized

Applitools is better than browser stack & LambdaTest as it offers AI-Powered Testing: Applitools leverages AI and machine learning algorithms to enhance its visual testing capabilities. The AI algorithms help in automatically identifying and classifying visual differences. Applitools introduces the concept of "Smart Locators," which are dynamic identifiers used to locate and identify elements in a more efficient manner.

Incentivized

• Overall adoption of an automation tool went up.
• Migration of existing selenium scripts to ACCELQ was relatively easy and less effort.
• Lack of overall admin console and hence managing the agents across different execution is difficult.
• Integration between accelQ and any test management tool can be difficult and buggy in most cases, even though it can be coded.

Incentivized

• cost effective
• faster delivery of product
• less error prone testing

Incentivized