ACCELQ is an agile quality management platform that helps users achieve continuous delivery for web, mobile, manual testing, and APIs. It can be used to write and manage manual test cases for the functionality that may be too fluid for automation.
N/A
BMC AMI DevX
Score 9.3 out of 10
N/A
An enterprise ready, low-code Git-based DevOps toolchain that enables all developers to connect, transform and modernize mainframe application with CI/CD automation, integrated developer environments (IDE), AI/ML-based application performance monitoring and visualization dashboards, and automated testing.
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.
I'm not sure what scenario it would not be suitable for. I have it up all day, though I do use the mainframe emulator to go back to the old 'green screen'. We have tools that we must use there. There is very little I can't do on the workbench. I'm trying to get some of our new developers to use it, as when I'm using it and talking to them on the phone, they don't know what I'm talking about.
Code Pipeline: integration of MF and non-MF type of object (COBOL, Java, zosconnect...). Deployment of objects coming from inside and outside the mainframe in the same way.
Workbench for Eclipse: a must-have for working with Code Pipeline and the mainframe in the development context.
Workbench for VS Code: They started developing VSCode, and the plugin works very well. There are a lot of things to add, but it's still very good. Young developers like it!
Support has been amazing compared to Optim. Further, new features are very regular with File-AID - I can't remember the last time Optim had a significant update. File-AID support is very receptive to feature requests and reported bugs, including sending out hotfixes quickly.
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.
Optim is more user friendly in how it operates, in my opinion. It's less obtuse to figure out how to extract and mask the data required compared to File-AID. Further, Optim is easier to gather related tables, by far. I do prefer using File-AID via the Topaz GUI much more than using Optim via its GUI. Finally, I personally believe that File-AID is significantly faster to run than Optim - this could be a configuration issue.
I can debug (expeditor) much faster and more efficiently. In fact, I was asked yesterday to run their job through Workbench Expeditor. I can also view data movement much better.
Code analysis lets me give a quicker explanation of what a program may do, as it provides a graphical interface showing processing and data movement.
