ACCELQ vs. LambdaTest

Low code test automation, Ready to pickup platform without having much prior knowledge on automation, AI agent interactions are nearly close to real life scenarios, best API automation scale it has got, QGPT logic builder has really changed the talk with DBs in AI way, Logic insights feature is really impressive to identify possible risk while just started developing web apps.

Incentivized

One day, I needed to test a specific issue that was occurring only on Pixel phones. I turned to LambdaTest, quickly identified the problem, and was able to fix it. There hasn't been a situation where I felt LambdaTest didn't help, it's my go-to solution for testing, as it solves many problems.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Very accessible as multiple users can be added in each subscription
• Very reliable as it is very close to the actual device when it comes to operating system and version behavior
• There are a lot of options for devices and browsers that users can choose from when it comes to emulating and testing

• Visual regression features
• Test generation from UI and UX platforms like Figma
• Manual test tools can be more integrated with AutoPilot

Incentivized

• More real devices should be added like I have Samsung mobile but it was not in the list
• It takes time in checking the link on LambdaTest if we compare with real mobiles
• Sometimes exact results are not matching as from real mobiles

The reason i have given the 10 points becasue the problem LambdaTest solves is providing access to all devices in one place, allowing developers to identify the same errors they would encounter on real devices. This makes life much easier, especially for developers who regularly face cross-device functionality issues. It's a big plus point that positions LambdaTest as an all-in-one solution.

Incentivized

Features like low code, API automation, auto pilot and free account creations, case studies are better suited for my business into IOT space, some of the enterprise automation features are truly game changer in productivity for my team. Database migration was supported seamlessly while opted for ACCELQ solutions.

Incentivized

Because of the ease of use of the platform, we just save a lot of time and effort with this as its a feature rich solution, we just need to upload app binary once and for everytime we need to test on a different device we can just directly install that binary on the device without the pain of reupload.

yes always available

Incentivized

haven't found any glitch while using this

Incentivized

The customer support team is very active and cooperative. Once, I contacted them in their off timings because of an issue, I got an instant reply from the executive and he resolved the issue very efficiently. This is why we have been using LambdaTest for more than two years. It is best suited for us.

Implementation of Lambdatest was very easy for different project requirements.

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

While BrowserStack is also a well-established platform, we found LambdaTest to offer similar and even better features at reasonable pricing. LambdaTest is more cost-effective than BrowserStack. LambdaTest provides a free forever plan, while BrowserStack does not. Even manual testing plans are better priced than BrowserStack’s. In terms of UI and onboarding, we found LambdaTest more user-friendly as well.

not all department, but we're using for our clients

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

• Automation testing has a bit of a learning curve
• Lack of real device keep that bug in your head if not on the website.
• Need to wait for a while for a new OS or browser version on the contrary of immediate availability in case of owning a lab