ACCELQ vs. Tricentis Testim

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

Well Suited for: Web Application Testing: It excels in automating tests for web applications, including e-commerce websites, CRM systems, and internal web-based tools. Its codeless approach and AI-driven test creation make it suitable for testing various web applications. Regression Testing: It is well-suited for regression testing, where existing test cases need to be executed repeatedly to ensure that new code changes do not introduce defects. Testim's self-healing capabilities help maintain test stability when the application's UI changes frequently. Cross-Browser Testing: Tricentis Testim is an excellent choice for cross-browser testing. It allows organizations to create tests that can be executed across different web browsers, ensuring consistent functionality and user experience. Not suited for: Complex Desktop Applications: Tricentis Testim is primarily designed for web application testing. It may be less appropriate for automating tests of complex desktop applications or applications that do not have a web-based UI. Highly Technical Testing Needs: Organizations with highly technical testing requirements, such as complex API testing or intricate database testing, may find Testim's codeless approach limiting. Specialized testing tools may be more appropriate.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Very intuitive and easy UX/UI
• Great support team for any question
• Ability to create automated tests from zero without knowing code

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

• Backend test has issues to perform.
• Cost wise perhaps, it's on the higher end
• Speed

Incentivized

We are using Testim all the time. Every new, big we roll out feature has tests and it is our only tool for regression tests.

Incentivized

They are very helpful and responsive. If I had any issue they helped solve it, even if it was neglect on my part.

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

Tricentis Testim provides features like Codeless Automation, Rapid Test creation, Self healing tests, parallel test execution which Selenium lacks. Secondly Tricentis has reduced maintenance and ease of adoption.

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

• Insightful and efficient reporting
• Fast test execution

Incentivized