ACCELQ vs. Worksoft Connective Automation Platform

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

• As I have worked with various ERP automation tools, Worksoft certify is a best tool in terms of End-to-End testing for SAP business processes.
• It is easy to understand by business people

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Prepared 25 end-to-end scenarios that leveraged 3,000 manual test cases and this was a big achievement for the customer to save the regression time and resources.
• It is fast to automate SAP projects
• Improved development cycle and nowadays customers are expecting "lights off" automation. We have scheduled lights off automation mode through Worksoft Certify.

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

• Worksoft Certify solution could be a bit more intuitive and user friendly
• Test Data Management - No testing system will work with bad or interpreted data

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

SAP TAO is only alternate tool I would suggest.

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

• Positive: End to End business process validation and Fast Test development
• Licenses issues should be minimized

Incentivized