ACCELQ is an agile quality management platform that helps users achieve continuous delivery for web, mobile, manual testing, and APIs. It can be used to write and manage manual test cases for the functionality that may be too fluid for automation.
N/A
Tricentis Tosca
Score 8.6 out of 10
N/A
Tricentis Tosca provides an approach to test
automation that is AI-powered, codeless, and end-to-end so it can test
everything in a complex IT landscape, to ensure business processes
work flawlessly no matter where changes occurs.
Its 160+ technology support helps users test everything at
the UI, API and data layer, including virtually any enterprise, custom,
homegrown and mobile application.
With its model-based approach, Tosca enables business,
QA and IT teams to…
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.
For projects having huge set of test cases to be automated can be accommodated by Tricentis Tosca with proper folder structure and best practices implementations. Tosca will be less appropriate for organizations where the number of automation scripts are limited with hardly any scope of increasing the script count or the cost of automation will be more than the cost of having manual resources as Tosca is a licensed tool.
Documentation - struggled multiple times with features not explained very well, or not explained at all
The only support is on Tricentis Forums, where, sometimes, based on 'luck' - you will open a support case, and wait few days until you get the chance to speak with someone from Tricentis and show case your issue
We aim to renew Tosca for our organization. What we lose in license cost is gained by having employee that do not need programming background. We also recoup a lot of the cost on the rapidity of automation. Only the support we might not use as much. I believe Tosca is here to stay at our organization
It can be a challenge for new users who have never used an automation tool. For example, it is hard to understand the layout of the screen and where to find how to update the data. The interface can be overwhelming at first.
Tricentis team was very supportive. Support is expensive but they helped us at many level. Setting up timeline, implementation, precise questions on automation challenges. We had an account manager and technical people we could as to talk to. Support was generally timely and helping. They often proposed to come on site to help us which would cost more but could be helpful
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.
Tricentis Tosca is codeless and therefore easier to use. It's a great tool for people that would start doing automation and have no coding background. It seems like it has the same capabilities as other test automation suites but I felt it lacked a bit of capabilities on the test management suite such as defects test suites organizations etc
It really had a very good impact on our ROI. We were able to automate most of the apps and layers with in it and get a very short execution time which led to increased releases with in short span of time.
Time to market really improved and efficiency of developing scripts was not too bad.
With built in test dashboards, it was easy to pull metrics and share the insights with management.
