ACCELQ vs. IBM DevOps Test UI

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

IBM Rational Functional Tester is good for automating thick applications.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• An execution log in html format provides detailed information of the actions, verifications, and screenshots with timestamps.
• Quick response and good support. IBM releases frequent updates to handle customer needs and fix issues.
• A solid object inspector, extensive functional library and playback monitor.

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

• Installation or updates were not always perfect. Would have to clean previous installations or reinstall Java if there were errors.
• No or very limited support of browsers outside of Internet Explorer.
• Uses a lot of memory, can have memory issues on large tests.

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

Selenium is similar to IBM Rational Functional Tester but is not as user friendly and does not support thick applications. Visual Studio Coded UI is newer so not as refined; the object inspector/management and execution log results is poor compared to IBM Rational Functional Tester.

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

• Speeds up and broadens the testing cycle by using machine time for regression testing.
• Frees up time for testers to focus on critical items outside the automated suite.

Incentivized