ACCELQ vs. Micro Focus Business Process Testing (discontinued)

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

You may want to consider this solution if you are already using HP ALM and HP UFT. It's a nice add on and encourages the team to think more on building small component based tests and promote lot of reuse. Also, if your team want business analysts or any non technical people build tests based on the flows, its probably the best solution available now. On the down side, the execution times if you have too many components are not great and on top of that you have to pay extra for the licensing. You can also build such frameworks using more open source solutions like bdd solutions.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Biggest advantage is - you can use the same components created for manual as well as automated testing
• It has a nice little feature called extended capabilities where you can easily automate tests SAP and oracle type architectures.
• Easy access library lets you create highly reusable and shareable components and the integrations is not that difficult

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

• If you are using components for automation testing, the time it takes to load a new component is too high and it sucks off the benefit of component based testing.
• You want to have many components in a test and so a BA can also create automated tests easily but too many components takes too long to executed .
• It comes with a cost. You can simply build a modular framework even without this framework and probably more efficiently.

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

The idea for building a component based modular test framework is great and it would be great add-on to HP tools if the add-on efficiency is made high and the cost is low.

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

• As the tool itself promotes re usability, we were able to cut down development and maintenance costs by good %.
• More than cost savings, out no technical folks started building automated tests based on user flows very easily.

Incentivized