ACCELQ vs. WebdriverIO

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

Best suited where frontend developments are in React and where BDD and TDD test frameworks are to be used. Its syntax is very easy to write and understand. Even the non-programmer can do the initial setup. Not suited when the language you are using is other than Javascript(or Typescript).

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• numerous integrations to tools
• fast easy location of page elements
• tool setup is amazing - they have a script to walk you through everything with prompts!!

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

• wdio.conf can contain too much where everything is encapsulated there, like the before and after functions
• A data provider-like testing would be useful. The only way to input different data into the same test is via a loop
• everything is needed to be done using the 'browser' object. Can be limiting where you don't have access to the browser depending on where you are in the code

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

Other tools we selected don't work in our application, it does or doesn't support multiple frames or need more tweaking just to make it works. When testing out WebdriverIO it just works as expected, no need to do such walk around to make it works multiple frames. It also can handle multiple tabs and windows.

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

• It helped in cross browser testing
• It helped in automating multiple browsers at a time.
• Code coverage is optimum as this supports Javascript(Typescript)

Incentivized