ACCELQ vs. Zephyr Enterprise

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

1. Well suited for companies having several applications which need rigorous continuous testing cycles due to periodic upgrades to products/features.
2. Ideally suited for use cases where there is a need to run sanity and regression suites very frequently.
3. It is very helpful to have a traceability matrix across Stories/tasks and easy to link all the test cases to be covered to stories.
4. Variety of reports for Quality Dashboard.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Creation of Folders, Sub Folder and Releases for various Teams/Projects
• Ability to create cycles and adding cases to these
• Ability to copy/clone entire test cycles for regression/sanity needs
• Linking of defects to Test Cases

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

• Better Test case Upload Utility
• Ability to quickly map test cases from excel to JIRA fields

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

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

• Time saving and productivity enhancement for QA teams by preventing context and tool switching
• High observability to management via QA Dashboards

Incentivized