National Instruments SystemLink vs. TestGrid

There are definitely scenarios where NI SystemLink will be useful but just didn't work out well for us. I needed to be able to replace an EXE file on a computer with a new EXE to do the upgrades but I was not able to do that through SystemLink. You had to work with packages in order to perform this and I didn't want to revamp my distribution plan. We also didn't need to do any asset management or calibration documentation through SystemLink. I was excited about being able to view data from the test stations through a browser but our engineers need historical data available and everything resets to a live view when you click back to the UI.

Incentivized

Easy navigation. Test Data Management. Flexible Supports for Automation Testing Sometimes it fails to connect to cloud devices or browsers

• Setup
• User Interface
• LabVIEW Integration

Incentivized

• Low barrier to entry for beginner test engineer due to scriptless nature of test case
• Proficient test engineer could utilize CI/CD Integration
• Both Browser & Mobile Device Infrastructure Available Natively

• Licensing
• Not able to see data from all test stations on one UI
• Lack of data history

Incentivized

• Can be slow in instances where multiple scripts and requests are running on a webpage plus the docs can also be improved

We frequently came across scenarios which were too cumbersome for manual testing & wanted an easy automation solution. We are now using TestGrid for those scenarios & are happy with the product.

• Availability to monitor multiple test stations remotely
• Was quick to integrate into existing LabVIEW codebase
• Ultimately did not justify the licensing cost for the benefit

Incentivized

• we were looking for a remote infrastructure provider so that our remote team could use it for automation as well as manual testing.