AutomationHQ vs. Mendix

The AutomationHQ tool is well suited for small to medium size projects, but sometimes there is difficulty in the case of complex elements which are present within multiple Iframes.

Mendix excels in scenarios involving Business Process Automation, making it a strong choice for applications requiring workflow automation, including processes like request approvals, document management, and other business workflows.Conversely, Mendix may be less suitable for projects that demand highly customized solutions with extensive custom coding. Its primary focus on low-code development may not align well with the requirements of projects that heavily rely on intricate and specialized coding.

Incentivized

• The best thing I liked about AutomationHQ is that it intelligently identify web elements and track changes in real-time applications
• It supports Data driven testing from mainly three data sources from Excel/XML/JSON
• There are myriad pre-build test steps, which we can use to built our own scripts.

• We're able to really easily develop different views that are very specific to a customer's needs or customer's different types of user needs. So for example, the production managers can have a certain view that's relevant to them and then certain line managers can have views that are specific to them that allow them to run different scenarios which they define. So it allows us to easily build customized apps for each different type of user.

Incentivized

• AutomationHQ doesn’t have test cases version control, we have to currently manually do this by copying the test script and [renaming] with the version. I wish AHQ can implement the version control so I don’t have to keep test script copies
• Complex elements like within multiple iframes have difficulty at run time. It seems we have to run it multiple time until AHQ's AI algorithm "learn" what is the right way

• Earlier versions lacked in UI/Ux. This is still improving.
• Since everyone and anyone can create custom add ons (widgets), Mendix could improve their quality checks (but not as rigid as eg Apple).
• Upgradeability used to be somewhat of an issue. Version 7 looks to be handling this better than previous versions.

A 10 would say I have nothing to wish for. A 9 means I haven't seen anything better.This tool really helps you in the whole creation and maintenace cycle, so from requirements to building/modeling to testing to deploying to capturing feedback.

Response times are quick and you will get updates regularly about the status of your request. Even with very technical questions they have specialists that can help you with your problems it will give you an answer or help you with a work around.

Mendix would be my preferred system all the way. The system is designed for these kinds of works. I've worked with WP and DNN but they should be used just for websites. To create an app for a business value, I would suggest Mendix. Also, the offline capabilities of Mendix have greatly improved since the deployment of Mendix 7.13.

• We have received gains for about 150% over a long period of time

• It helps to speed up application development because of its low code by the fact that it's low code. It allows professional developers to focus more on specialized application development rather than the more routine application development that business IT and super users can do for themselves with some coaching from the IT department. So it's just allowing the more specialist professional developers.net, for example, Java in our organization to focus on more complex engineering application developments.

Incentivized