ACCELQ vs. Visual Studio App Center

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

Honestly, it's an all around solution that needs some enhancements. Need to build an app, check! Need to test that app, check! Need to debug that app, check! Visual Studio App Center is a well rounded platform for multiple types of builds and services.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• It supplies the right native integration for test cases both IOS and Android
• Constant device updates means you are working with the right builds to support product use cases
• Excels in automated test cases that are easy to implement, monitor, and digest results

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

• Webview support was lacking
• User management seems a bit disconnected from the standard Microsoft ecosystem. Almost feels like you are managing local users and sharing access more than an enterprise solution
• Price could be better
• Buggy on some of the latest versions of windows

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

The biggest benefit is in integrations and plug-ins, as well as the fact that it's not open source. I know open source is popular, but we have all been on the downside of open source and waiting for things to be voted up or a contribution to fix an issue. This alone makes VSAC a nice solution! Plus, it comes with a complete IDE integration of services, documentation, and is light weight

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

• Cut down on time to delivery enhancements and overall builds to users
• Helps test new proposed releases with ease
• Cuts down on local build issues as it does do a good job with local development environments as well

Incentivized