ACCELQ vs. Rapise

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

The appropriate scenario to use Rapise is when we have a project that is considered from medium onwards, since Rapise will help us to define, develop and implement the testing phase in a reliable and efficient way. Also with Rapise we will not have to worry about the platform that we are using since it has great versatility and flexibility.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Simple recording front-end and easily captures UI objects for later interaction
• Flexible programming interface provides a multitude of manners in which to interact with learned UI objects
• Javascript based IDE is easy to learn

• 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

• For tests that require specific approaches it is necessary to have advanced knowledge of programming in javascrip, which sometimes the QA team does not have experience
• Sometimes I have noticed that when using object dragging errors occur intermittently
• The integration with some tools (Dynamics) is only with the basic functions from my point of view

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

Mmuch better from a flexibility perspective

• 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

• The primary objective of the institution is a service to the public, so everything that improves response times to the public helps us to achieve it.
• As a department in charge of the development of systems and applications, our objective is fulfilled by delivering quality products and tools such as Rapise help us greatly
• The return on investment can be more than justified by fulfilling the primary objectives

Incentivized