IBM DevOps Test UI vs. mabl vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite (legacy)

IBM Rational Functional Tester is good for automating thick applications.

Incentivized

We haven't found a scenario yet where it hasn't been appropriate. We did have one function on our application that mabl couldn't do, but they solved it and got back to us very quickly. Our application is web-based and mabl is able to handle this very easily. We use the command line runner a lot. Being able to easily and quickly change from a cloud based run to a local run has been fantastic. Setting up flows and environments is a wonderful feature

Incentivized

It is extremely well suited for database upgrade testing as well as major upgrades of the E-business suite applications. It is less suited for performing this for minor patching efforts.

Incentivized

• An execution log in html format provides detailed information of the actions, verifications, and screenshots with timestamps.
• Quick response and good support. IBM releases frequent updates to handle customer needs and fix issues.
• A solid object inspector, extensive functional library and playback monitor.

Incentivized

• mabl trainer - record and play back test cases
• Organization - labels and flows make this easy
• Customer support!

Incentivized

• Load testing with useful graphical interface tools to watch real time performance
• Flexible configuration for monitoring utilities
• Historical tracking for baseline performance before and after upgrades

Incentivized

• Installation or updates were not always perfect. Would have to clean previous installations or reinstall Java if there were errors.
• No or very limited support of browsers outside of Internet Explorer.
• Uses a lot of memory, can have memory issues on large tests.

Incentivized

• Asserts could be easier to add, but they aren't terribly hard

Incentivized

• Learning Oracles testing language "OpenScript" is a challenge, and for less technical people could be a problem
• Sometimes the applications automatic updates cause more problems than they solve
• The cost of the suite is higher than some competing applications

Incentivized

Selenium is similar to IBM Rational Functional Tester but is not as user friendly and does not support thick applications. Visual Studio Coded UI is newer so not as refined; the object inspector/management and execution log results is poor compared to IBM Rational Functional Tester.

Incentivized

We ultimately selected mabl cause it most met our needs and our budget. We needed a low code UI automation test tool. We also have a suite of existing testing tools and other tools that it needed to be able to integrate with. Price was the only thing that ruled out some of the above tools, we are a small start up, and don't have a huge budget. Some tools listed didn't have the same functionality or ease of use with the record and playback. mabl works on our machines and integrates with our existing tools

Incentivized

Oracle Application Testing Suite is much more useful and we work more than ZAPTEST because it is a life cycle tool that allows us to define and manage your application test process, validate the functionality of the application and ensure that your applications work under load. Implement web applications and web services in less time while maximizing the efficiency of the tests.

Incentivized

• Speeds up and broadens the testing cycle by using machine time for regression testing.
• Frees up time for testers to focus on critical items outside the automated suite.

Incentivized

• We are able to more quickly automate UI tests

Incentivized

• Some of our applications had struggled with performing well under high load times and was adversely affecting the usage of our client services. Using Oracle Application Testing Suite we were able to diagnose some of the architectural flaws and helped make our apps more performant.

Incentivized