Appium vs. IBM DevOps Test Performance

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Appium
Score 9.2 out of 10
N/A
N/AN/A
IBM DevOps Test Performance
Score 5.7 out of 10
N/A
IBM DevOps Test Performance helps software testing teams test earlier and more frequently by shifting testing left. IBM DevOps Test Performance validates the scalability of web and server applications, identifies the presence and cause of system performance bottlenecks and reduces load testing. Software testing teams can execute performance tests that analyze the impact of load on applications.N/A
Pricing
AppiumIBM DevOps Test Performance
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
AppiumIBM DevOps Test Performance
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
AppiumIBM DevOps Test Performance
Best Alternatives
AppiumIBM DevOps Test Performance
Small Businesses
Swiftify
Swiftify
Score 9.0 out of 10
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.8 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Swiftify
Swiftify
Score 9.0 out of 10
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.8 out of 10
Enterprises
Swiftify
Swiftify
Score 9.0 out of 10
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.8 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
AppiumIBM DevOps Test Performance
Likelihood to Recommend
9.9
(10 ratings)
6.0
(1 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
10.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
9.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
AppiumIBM DevOps Test Performance
Likelihood to Recommend
JS Foundation
1. It's open source which supports range of languages, operating systems and languages. Well suited for Android and IOS mobile automation. Supports all kinds of apps, which makes it flexible and robust mobile testing tool 2. It is less appropriate where we need intercept network call to verify the API calls. Extensive coding experience is required to work Appium
Read full review
IBM
Go for IBM RPT if: 1. You're testing a Java-based Web application with HTTP protocol 2. You wanted to distribute the load across machines easily 3. Your team is in learning phase/not really introduced to a wide range of performance testing tools Do not go for IBM RPT if: 1. You wanted to test REST or any other advanced protocols 2. Your system under test demands a very high user load 3. Your application is written in .NET or any other platform except Java.
Read full review
Pros
JS Foundation
  • It uses WebDriver API so it makes it easy to use for former web test automation engineers.
  • It can be managed via the command line via an extensive set of parameters.
  • It handles implicit waits at the server side that is especially valuable in distributed infrastructure.
Read full review
IBM
  • Data Parameterisation/ Data Correlation is made simpler compared to its competitors
  • Distributed Load Testing is easier to set up
  • Performance metric gathering while a test is in progress
  • Th look and Feel really helps a beginner to understand and work with.
Read full review
Cons
JS Foundation
  • Element browser sometimes is unreliable and has sporadic fails.
  • Appium running is a bit slow, compared to tests written with Appium and with Espresso or XCTest.
Read full review
IBM
  • Memory utilization could have been improved.(Eats up system's RAM)! It may crash if a test is conducted with the heavy load if adequate RAM is not available in the VM/host machine.
  • Licensing could have been made simpler. IBM's licensing method is difficult to follow.
  • Support for protocols other than HTTP. Not really up to the current trend.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
JS Foundation
I am rating 10/10 because Appium can use with multiple programming languages with multiple Test engines. Also, it works for both Android and iOS.
Read full review
IBM
No answers on this topic
Usability
JS Foundation
I would like to give 9/10 rating to Appium because of it can easily integrate with popular frameworks and CI/CD tools, as well as it is reliable, flexible and easy to use. The setup can bit complex in initial step, but once on configured it's very easy to use and enables stable and scalable mobile automation for real and cloud devices.
Read full review
IBM
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
JS Foundation
If you're an Apple developer, you use Xcode. It's practically a forced necessity. For system testing though, it doesn't have to be. You can have your development team focus on unit and integration tests in their platform and another team automate acceptance tests with a language they are more familiar with.
Read full review
IBM
Cost/Licensing: While JMeter is an opensource testing tool from Apache, compared to IBM RPT and HP LoadRunner, RPT is much cheaper than Loadrunner. Functionality: JMeter provides basic functionalities which are adequate for performance testing, however advanced features are not available (such as load testing with GUI, reporting is very basic etc.). But when it comes to Loadrunner, it offers very broad features and supports a variety of protocols. So in this category, Loadrunner is a winner, but RPT is better than JMeter. Ease of operating: JMeter is easy compared to LoadRunner, but it has old GUI and look and feel is not that great to understand. Also, most of the things are to be done in a command line, non-GUI mode. While LoadRunner is very advanced with many options, which also confusing sometimes. But RPT, on the other hand, maintains a balance between simplicity and offering of different features. So winner: RPT.
Read full review
Return on Investment
JS Foundation
  • Appium is open source, so it's free. That's budget friendly right there.
  • The ability to write mobile automation tests has saved considerable time for our manual test team, but that is true with most automation tests.
  • We use Sauce Labs with our other automation, but Appium works great with Sauce Labs, as well, if I needed to run on emulators and simulators.
Read full review
IBM
  • Accuracy in metrics, thus improving system's performance
  • Costs less compared to competitor like HP LoadRunner
  • Helped the team of beginners learn things quickly
Read full review
ScreenShots