ACCELQ vs. PractiTest

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
ACCELQ
Score 7.3 out of 10
N/A
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
PractiTest
Score 8.2 out of 10
N/A
PractiTest is presented as a cloud-based test management tool that provides its customers with an end-to-end system to meet testing and QA needs. It is described by the vendor as flexible but methodological, enabling organizations to ensure visibility and communication at all levels. The solution aims to help users and project development teams streamline and manage their testing processes, while providing management with a clear and simple view of their project status at all times.
$39
user
Pricing
ACCELQPractiTest
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Professional
$39.00
user
Enterprise
$49.00
user
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
ACCELQPractiTest
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeOptional
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
ACCELQPractiTest
Top Pros

No answers on this topic

Top Cons

No answers on this topic

Features
ACCELQPractiTest
Test Management
Comparison of Test Management features of Product A and Product B
ACCELQ
-
Ratings
PractiTest
8.5
4 Ratings
6% above category average
Centralized test management00 Ratings9.24 Ratings
Map tests to user stories00 Ratings8.44 Ratings
Test execution reporting00 Ratings8.44 Ratings
Defect management00 Ratings8.03 Ratings
Best Alternatives
ACCELQPractiTest
Small Businesses
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.4 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.4 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 7.3 out of 10
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
Score 7.4 out of 10
Enterprises
ignio AIOps
ignio AIOps
Score 8.1 out of 10
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
Score 7.4 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
ACCELQPractiTest
Likelihood to Recommend
7.0
(1 ratings)
8.7
(4 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
ACCELQPractiTest
Likelihood to Recommend
ACCELQ
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.
Read full review
PractiTest
PractiTest works GREAT as a test case repository. It is very easy to gather metrics, filter, and sort based on custom fields. We were able to work with the API to pull our automation results in as well. The support team is always very quick with their responses and monitors the "in-app chat." They are very open to answering questions, providing best practice materials, and looking for additional feedback. If you already have a central location for all of your test cases and testing needs, then I guess you probably wouldn't need to add another. However, PractiTest has high capability and potential, so if it's set up properly you can easily save time managing your tests.
Read full review
Pros
ACCELQ
  • Scriptless and hence coding is easy.
  • Maintenance of the scripts are easy.
  • Learning curve is small.
Read full review
PractiTest
  • Effective Test case template.
  • Can integrate with different Atlassian products.
  • Report generation.
Read full review
Cons
ACCELQ
  • 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.
Read full review
PractiTest
  • Linking the defect with Jira throws an error quite some times which can be improved in the future.
Read full review
Support Rating
ACCELQ
No answers on this topic
PractiTest
The chat button is available to anyone who logs into PractiTest. In my experience, the support has always been very quick, very friendly, and very thorough. They make sure that your question is answered in a way that you understand it. They also provide documentation of best practices so you are never left hanging on what to do next.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
ACCELQ
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.
Read full review
PractiTest
I've used many different Test Case Repository tools, and while each of them has its perks, I like the capabilities of PractiTest best. When creating a test in qTest for example, you can only input information into the fields provided, and you have everything set up in a folder tree structure. With PractiTest, we are able to create custom fields and filter our tests based on those fields to provide more accurate information in a readily available format while quickly searching for the filter instead of through a folder tree. TestRail did not appear to meet our needs as a company. It just didn't have the potential that we found with PractiTest. Zephyr for example worked seamlessly with Jira, which is really nice since that is what we use for the most part. However since we cater to many different clients, we needed an external Test Case repository so we could use something that wasn't tied to 1 Jira instance.
Read full review
Return on Investment
ACCELQ
  • 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.
Read full review
PractiTest
  • Test Reporting
  • Defect Management
Read full review
ScreenShots

PractiTest Screenshots

Screenshot of Screenshot of Screenshot of Screenshot of