ACCELQ vs. Rapise

Low code test automation, Ready to pickup platform without having much prior knowledge on automation, AI agent interactions are nearly close to real life scenarios, best API automation scale it has got, QGPT logic builder has really changed the talk with DBs in AI way, Logic insights feature is really impressive to identify possible risk while just started developing web apps.

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

• Visual regression features
• Test generation from UI and UX platforms like Figma
• Manual test tools can be more integrated with AutoPilot

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

Features like low code, API automation, auto pilot and free account creations, case studies are better suited for my business into IOT space, some of the enterprise automation features are truly game changer in productivity for my team. Database migration was supported seamlessly while opted for ACCELQ solutions.

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