mabl vs. Selenium vs. Siteimprove

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

When you have to test the UI and how it behaves when certain actions are performed, you need something that can automate the browsers. This is where Selenium comes to the rescue. If you have to test APIs and not the frontend (UI), I would recommend going with other libraries that support HTTP Requests. Selenium is good only when you have no choice but to run the steps on a browser.

Incentivized

Siteimprove works well for managing the health and performance of your customer-facing sites in terms of performance, digital experience, and accessibility. It also helps to define policies to proactively avoid experience breaks or issues for customers before they occur. It can improve by providing more options to configure policies for large sites with thousands of pages.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• For any web based UI automation, Selenium is the best tool out there to automate your tests.
• It supports multiple coding languages like Java, Python, Ruby, C# etc.. to choose from.
• There is a huge community of users and can get many answers on StackOverFlow.
• It has lot of other plugins to make your tests even more efficient.

Incentivized

• User-friendly customisable dashboards, easy to make a dashboard from a template, or create your own, and add in whichever 'widgets' are relevant for what you are looking at
• Flagging words to review, allowing users to check and confirm if the word is 'accepted' or is a misspelling

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Selenium is pretty user-friendly but sometimes tests tend to flake out. I'd say roughly one out of twenty tests yields a false positive.
• Selenium software cannot read images. This is a minor negative because a free plug-in is available from alternate sources.
• Slowness may be a minor factor with Selenium, though this is an issue with basically any testing software since waiting on a site to execute JavaScript requires the browser to wait for a particular action.

Incentivized

• I don't like that there are different navigation paths to go from point A to point B. When I want to navigate to a specific place, I have more than one way to get there, which means I have to make a decision about how I want to there and I'd rather the designer make that design based on what would be most efficient for me.

We love this product mainly because of its high customization abilities and the ease of use. Moreover, its free and can be learned easily through online communities and videos. The tests are more consistent and reliable as compared to Manual tests. It has enabled us to test a large number of features all in one go, which would have impossible through manual tests. The reports generated at the end of the tests are really helpful for the QA and the development teams to get a fair view of the application.

Incentivized

For those who are unfamiliar with coding, there is a bit of a learning curve. There is plenty of helpful documentation and resources but it can take a little time to get the software up and running. Once you get the hang of how Selenium works, and what it can do, you realize how many things you can use it for, and how many processes you can automate.

Incentivized

Tool has undergone numerous changes, both to function and UX/CX. Makes it less than user friendly at times. But on the other hand, that does indicate a willingness to improve the product in a continual manner - which they've done nearly year after year - but it's always a case of who moved my cheese with each new iteration.

The Selenium app has a pretty fat community of users. For the problems we are experiencing, we are primarily receiving support from these communities. In addition, there is widespread service support. Instant support is given to the problems we experience when we need Online support. We and our team are happy to provide this support, especially before important deployment processes

I've used support often and it has been responsive, thorough and considerate of our needs. I can get a tech right away, they understand the issue, and work with us to resolve it. Often the problem is with the site we are trying to scan, sometimes it is with their product. I appreciate that they go beyond support into continually helping us implement SiteImprove in more places with 3rd party integration.

We did everything we needed to use it. Now we can execute our tests on different operational systems and browsers running few tests simultaneously. We also implemented Appium framework to execute our tests on mobile devices, such as iPhones, iPads, Android phones and tablets. We use SauceLabs for our test execution and Jenkins for continuous integration.

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

At the time of adoption, there were not many other alternatives that were even close to being competitive when it comes to browser testing. As far as I know now to this day, there is still little competition to Selenium for what it does. Any other browser-based testing still utilises Selenium to interact with the browser.

Incentivized

We have used or tested other tools that get installed on a computer or that are hosted online, but none of them offer the features that come with Siteimprove. TotalValidator Pro will check your site for accessibility issues, but it is a manual check and there is no historical reporting. I can;t remember the names of the other online solutions, but even if they offered similar features as Siteimprove, they were all very expensive .

Incentivized

• We are able to more quickly automate UI tests

Incentivized

• There hasn’t been a downside to using it yet other than we’ve got to update the programs we create for each change.
• This has saved us hundreds of hours of manpower by allowing our automation engineer to rapid fire tests.
• We are able to screenshot and save entire sites before and after launch with a program the automation engineer created
• We can compare large volumes of data against data in excel docs with a program created using Selenium

Incentivized

• Siteimprove has helped bring our accessibility scores up from middling to near-perfect.
• Siteimprove has helped reduce our broken links, style violations and misspellings.
• Siteimprove's heatmaps have helped us make the case for enforcing best practices on the website among key stakeholders.

Incentivized