ACCELQ vs. Perfecto by Perforce

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

Same test case scripts can be executed on different mobiles irrespective of operating systems and language it supports. This covers a wide range of devices (Android, iOS, Blackberry etc) on which automated testing can be performed in very less time. The test scripts are written written using keyword-based Script Once Technology. The creation of scripts are easy. It saves time and effort. Repetitive testing on each iteration would be now be less tedious. This would also allow QA to focus on quality. It would expand test case coverage in the application and finally release reliable/robust application. In all, improving the app quality.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Impressive UI
• Strong support system
• Wide variety of devices

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

• It has a lot of room for improvements in terms of reporting and integration with other reporting and defect tools.
• It should have the capability of capturing charts data.
• It should be able to do some scenarios that only manual testers can do. Like - use of camera and touch ID features.

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

Perfecto has a wide array of mobile devices we can chose from. Automation is easier using OCR technology. The test script generated detailed report of the executed test script at the end with vast variety of information such as actual results, screen captures in digital format, continuous video recording of the entire script and graphs showing statistics about the execution

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

• Since the devices are over cloud, it saves a lot of investment on mobile testing.
• Can be used by testers across the globe.

Incentivized