ACCELQ vs BrowserStack: Which is a better fit?

Sandeep: I'm Sandeep, I'm currently working at a startup called Clarity, which is having 150 employees. And so I would rate ACCELQ as a five out of five. I used to work with the various traditional automation tools, which are license free, such as Selenium, or some of the JavaScript based automation tools. The reason they did not work for me is there are two key things. One is the effort involved in maintaining the setup. Usually if we consider Selenium or any automation tool where we have to set up everything from the scratch and we have to take care of the maintenance. And if there is a change, if we want to scale it up, so we have to take care of the maintenance as well at the framework level or the design level. And the second part is, I'm currently working on an application which is based out of Salesforce platform. Usually when we are working with Salesforce or any kind of CRM platforms, so we may encounter some UI challenges such as short adopts or any kind of those. These challenges, we manually have to deal with them. We have to customize our scripting and we have to deal with them. These are the two reasons I was looking for an advanced automation tool, which has the capability to resolve and also have the capability of having its own built-in framework and all. The reason we have chosen ACCELQ is the AI-based advanced capabilities that ACCELQ is having. I'll start with the design level aspects. Usually whatever the framework design we do before starting our scripting, so we don't have to deal with that. ACCELQ, you can use it as a web instance, and it has the inbuilt components or entities, whatever we need at the scenario level or at the object repository level, or test suit level. So everything is already taken care. All we have to do is start building the scripts. And also, when it comes to building a UI automation we have to deal with the object repositories, and also we have to take care of capturing the UI element properties, and then having them organized in our framework. ACCELQ will take care of all of them. It works based out of an image based mechanism, so all you have to do is capture an image and it will be able to identify. And in the recent version, ACCELQ has more additional capabilities. It doesn't even bother about the UA element properties. Based on the label, it will be able to identify the UA elements. So it is more advanced. We don't have to spend too much of time in maintaining the repository, we can focus more on the implementation part. And also, ACCELQ has more predefined methods such as whatever the UA action that you have or validation part that you need, all of them are already captured and wrapped in the package. So you just have to do is, in your plain English language you can search for the command and you can use it in your scripting. And also, the reporting is very advanced. In any of the traditional automation framework we have to build a reporting and we have to customize it as for our needs. ACCELQ has inbuilt reporting, which is more advanced, and we will be able to inject CI/CD capabilities as well, like scheduling the job or rerunning. Those kind of things as well, they're already incorporated within the ACCELQ. These are some of the capabilities which direct our attention towards it. One of the key advantage with the ACCELQ is, we don't need any prerequisite or previous knowledge on any automation. You can directly get started with ACCELQ because it is completely developed with the plain text. What the commands or even the overall design, it is very user-friendly. Even when we have a new QA engineer join our team, they don't need any previous scripting knowledge or automation expertise. They can directly get started with the tool because everything is very easy to understand and we can even relate it. That's how ACCELQ was built. When you are choosing an automation tool, or when you want to switch to a different automation tool from your traditional automation, you can get a POC instance. You can request for a POC instance, as ACCELQ does not provide any trial version. You can see if it is falling in your requirements and matching with your requirements. And also, the ACCELQ subscription model works in a different way, so you can compare it with our available automation tools and see if it is falling in your budget.

Mike: Hi, my name is Mike. I'm a lead handshaker, and I give BrowserStack a five out of five. For more reviews like this, click below. Things that we were using before BrowserStack, was just testing on local devices, installing a bunch of browsers on all the different computers, talking to that one guy at the office that happened to have a Mac and just do the testing locally. The reason we chose BrowserStack is quite simply, it's the only solution that I'm aware of that allows you to test on hundreds of browsers and operating systems on actual hardware without emulation. For just the basic testing and live testing, it's super easy to get started. You can get onboarded within a couple of minutes, and your team can start testing different web interfaces, local environments, and putting in bug reports to get all that stuff fixed. At my last agency, we actually used BrowserStack Automate and actually did some selenium testing to make the process even quicker and that only took our dev team about two weeks to fully integrate into. But if you are 95% of the work that we do with BrowserStack, it's just, you want to test on a bunch of browsers or a customer said they had an issue on Firefox, and you just want to be able to reproduce it, you can get up and running with just a couple of clicks. If you're thinking about using BrowserStack, first of all, do yourself a favor and do testing. Don't think just because it works on Chrome on Windows, it's going to work in Chrome on Mac, and don't forget about the lesser known browsers. Also, if your project is open source, and you can point to a public open source repository like a GitHub or Bitbucket, they have very generous, complimentary open source licenses available for your project, so definitely check that out.