ACCELQ vs. Testlio

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

Testlio is well-suited to work with us due to its flexibility and scalability, which align perfectly with the dynamic needs of a growing technology firm. Testlio's global network of professional testers provides the breadth and depth of testing expertise necessary to cover the array of technologies and platforms used by us. Additionally, this combination of Testlio's flexible testing solutions and our need for cost-effective, comprehensive QA support makes Testlio an ideal partner for ensuring a high standard of software quality.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Westin and Sidhi were proactive in preparing for test runs
• Westin was quick to reschedule calls, provide constant updates on our progress, and helped us get rollover hours
• Sidhi ensured testing was thorough with her commitment to creating high-quality test scripts with screenshots and details information

• 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

• Sometimes testers don't put correct information in bugs.

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

When comparing Testlio against other vendors, several key factors set it apart and made it the preferred choice for us. Testlio's singular focus on testing services we thought would include a depth of expertise and quality that generalist dev shops can't match. Secondly, Testlio's flexible engagement models stood out significantly. Unlike other vendors that might offer more rigid, one-size-fits-all solutions, Testlio provides customizable testing services that can be scaled up or down based on project needs.

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

• Making sure we don't have a "buggy" website helps legitimize our company and build our reputation as a contender in the web3 space