Appium vs. National Instruments SystemLink vs. WebdriverIO

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

Incentivized

There are definitely scenarios where NI SystemLink will be useful but just didn't work out well for us. I needed to be able to replace an EXE file on a computer with a new EXE to do the upgrades but I was not able to do that through SystemLink. You had to work with packages in order to perform this and I didn't want to revamp my distribution plan. We also didn't need to do any asset management or calibration documentation through SystemLink. I was excited about being able to view data from the test stations through a browser but our engineers need historical data available and everything resets to a live view when you click back to the UI.

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

• 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.

Incentivized

• Setup
• User Interface
• LabVIEW Integration

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

• 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.

Incentivized

• Licensing
• Not able to see data from all test stations on one UI
• Lack of data history

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

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.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

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.

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

• 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.

Incentivized

• Availability to monitor multiple test stations remotely
• Was quick to integrate into existing LabVIEW codebase
• Ultimately did not justify the licensing cost for the benefit

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