ACCELQ vs. SoapUI Open Source, supported by SmartBear

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

Good for simple requests, simple scripts, assertions, and small workflows. Also not bad with the Open Source version if savvy with code as you can do a lot with custom functionality.Free version has limited compatibility with scripts/projects created from the Pro version, but functionality-wise can probably be made up with coding. As such, the free version may not be too suitable for complex scripts or for those who are not familiar with coding as functionality/usability may be limited.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Ease of implementation
• Ease of use
• User friendly interface

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

• I actually like SoapUI as it is, I have not found things to improve, except for the speed of response is very complex services.

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

Compared to SoapUI, we have been using "light" tools like RestClient extension in Firefox, or Postman. Compared to Postman, SoapUI is more simple for WSDL / SOAP webservices, as SoapUI generate all envelop, but Postman does not. For Rest API, I think that Postman is a little above SoapUI, but not too far away.

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

• Testing resolves most of the issues in the development phases.
• User friendliness of the app makes it good.
• Overall client happiness depends on the clean project, which is possible by testing.

Incentivized