Ghost Inspector vs. Progress Test Studio

1. It's amazing for all kinds of browser testing. 2. Very easy to use and you can implement it to cover your tests in a short time. 3. You don't need to be a coding guru, many stuff are autogenerated or builtin and can be easily implemented without huge efforts 4. Reporting and UI is easy to understand and navigate through

Incentivized

It is very good for testers who have little coding experience but are willing to learn. It is very good for regression testing and really helps us identify issues that could have been a detriment to our end users. It is also great to keep track of the performance of pages across time.

Incentivized

• UI Integration tests
• Asynchronas execution of suites and tests
• Easy way to generate steps of the tests with Chrome plugin

Incentivized

• Easy to configure.
• Plugins can be integrated easily with visual studio.
• Takes less time to run all the test scenarios, [and] also generates graphics report for all the tests.
• Keeps bugs [out of] the production.

Incentivized

• The number of available integrations is small, but I see more integrations are coming on the way
• Provide builtin alerting system in case of test failures
• Improve provide more roles not only user and administrator. A viewer role for example

Incentivized

• Client start-up time is a bit slow. Application is a bit sluggish, when there is a lot of tests open.
• Automated scheduling environment is a bit challenging to maintain.

Incentivized

1. Faster in terms of time when building the integration browser tests 2. No or minimum development skills needed. 3. No server management is needed on our end. 4. Covers a lot of browsers and cases 5. Builtin integrations for different stuff like slack and PD 6. Fast and provides asynchronous executions

Incentivized

Test Studios had a smaller foot print and allowed us to ease into deploying it in the company. The online help was a great benefit to getting started and the evaluation period allowed us to fully run though the product before purchasing it. Cost difference between the products was a big decision factor as well for the type of deployment we were looking for.

Incentivized

• We saved a lot of money by using this tool instead of purchasing expensive ones
• The implementation of integrations test was supposed to take 6 months of development. With GI it took 2 months only
• Training QA to build integration tests using GI is much less that any other tool that might need development skills

Incentivized

• Excellent results, workloads for continuous regresssion testing has been decreased by more than 50 percent.
• Time window needed for regression tests has decreased more than 50 percent.

Incentivized