ACCELQ vs. Ranorex Studio

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

Personally I rate it a 10 from my own experience, but from a company perspective, I would drop that to perhaps an 8. This is because while I have fun while finding it extremely easy to use and comprehensive enough, there have been times that relative to the project currently in works, Ranorex has not performed due to its shortcomings. If asked though I would certainly fully recommend Ranorex to a potential user, especially to someone less skilled in this field.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Initial setup.
• User guide.
• Getting money from customers.

• 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

• Language support is limited, c# and Vb.net only if i remember correctly compared to other tools which allow many more. This addition would certainly be appreciated if added on in a company like mine with a variety of differently skilled individuals
• Paid license. This is not always preferred. A free version without a limited trial but maybe limited features would be appreciated.

Incentivized

I suppose my experience is sort of mixed. Help documents are substantially helpful. I personally have not got the quickest responses from Ranorex support but at the same time, they are pretty good with updating their users frequently with info about their product/s and features. The community is really where I find support and I suppose that could look to be an extension of the product itself.

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

We have used Selenium as well. This has picked up more steam than Ranorex if i have to be honest.

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

• We were left without a working solution so the whole project had to been stopped.