mabl 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

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

• 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

• 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.

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.

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 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

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

• 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