As quality assurance (QA) professionals and developers, the pursuit of the ideal automation tool can be as challenging as finding a needle in a digital haystack. Your experience with Leapwork might have been less than satisfactory, prompting a search for alternatives that better align with your project requirements and ease of use aspirations.
However, navigating the vast ocean of automation tools and distinguishing the right fit for your needs is no trivial task.
In our upcoming article, “10 Leapwork Alternatives,” we delve into a curated list of automation platforms that could be your next go-to solution. From Repeato’s code-free UI test creation for mobile apps to the comprehensive mobile testing suite of Sauce Labs, we explore a spectrum of tools tailored to various testing demands and expertise levels. We’ll examine the AI-driven capabilities of Autify and Accelq, the plain English test scripting of testRigor, and Katalon’s versatile software quality management platform. Additionally, we’ll look into the low-code approach of mabl, the innovative robot-driven testing by Mobot, and the browser automation prowess of Playwright.
Join us as we guide you through these alternatives, providing insights that could lead you to the automation partner your team has been seeking.
Latest update: 1/31/2024, 3:46:08 PM
We do not guarantee the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information presented on our website. This includes prices, product specifications, and availability, which are subject to change. The reviews on this site are collected from g2.com and crozdesk.com and summarized by us.
Alternatives to Leapwork
|Ease of Use
|Mobile test automation tool for iOS and Android apps, utilizing AI and computer vision.
|Intuitive UI, supports various methods, stable, no coding required.
|Limited iOS system interactions, enterprise-only CI/CD tools, occasional errors.
|Very easy to learn
|Free plan available, Basic €70/user/month, Pro €120/user/month, Enterprise on request.
|Discontinued automated UI functional testing tool that supported script-based and scriptless options.
|Web, Android, iOS
|Easy to learn
|AI-powered no-code solution for QA teams, enabling cross-browser/device testing and AI-driven maintenance.
|Web, Android, iOS
|No coding, efficient, AI maintenance, agile support, rapid framework creation.
|Limited integrations, learning curve, no self-tutorial videos, complex data challenges.
|Very easy to learn
|Starter $120/month, Pro $550/month, Enterprise custom pricing.
|AI-driven codeless test automation platform for end-to-end business assurance across applications.
|Web, Android, iOS
|Efficiency, self-healing, comprehensive coverage, Salesforce automation, easy maintenance.
|Java integration, UI issues, limited filter options, ETL testing limitations.
|Very easy to learn
|Custom pricing, on-premise/cloud deployment, free trial available.
|AI-based tool for writing tests in plain English, supporting web, mobile, desktop, and API testing.
|Web, Android, iOS
|Plain English scripts, multiple browsers/devices, customer support, scalable solution.
|Occasional crashes, server resource costs, lack of educational materials.
|Very easy to learn
|Free plan, Private $900/month, Enterprise custom pricing.
|Software quality management platform with tools for test authoring, execution, and analysis.
|Web, Android, iOS
|Reduced test maintenance, built-in reporting, low learning curve, cross-functional support.
|Separate licensing, cost for advanced features, mobile execution issues.
|Easy to learn
|Free plan, Premium $167/month, Ultimate custom pricing.
|Mobile testing tools for app functionality across devices with features like real device cloud and beta testing.
|Web, Android, iOS
|Integration ease, versatility, intuitive UI, parallel execution, video recordings.
|High costs, server errors, slow support response, lack of report export options.
|Easy to learn
|Live $39/month, Virtual Cloud $149/month, Real Device Cloud $199/month, Enterprise custom pricing.
|Low-code automation platform with AI-driven testing, cross-browser/mobile testing, and API testing.
|Easy implementation, comprehensive documentation, multi-browser/API support, rapid development.
|No native mobile support, limited reporting, cloud/local execution discrepancies.
|Very easy to learn
|Custom pricing based on test coverage and scalability requirements.
|Automated mobile QA solutions employing mechanical robots integrated with AI and ML for mobile app testing.
|Web, Android, iOS
|Robot-driven testing, fully-managed service, campaign monitoring, comprehensive coverage.
|Very easy to learn
|Live $249/month, Managed $1,999/month, Insights $1,999/month.
|Node.js library for web browser automation, offering consistent cross-browser testing and powerful tools.
|Resilient testing, no test scenario compromises, isolation and speed, cross-browser support.
|Requires expert technical knowledge.
|Requires expert technical knowledge
|Free open-source software
This table provides a concise comparison of various automated testing tools, highlighting key differences in platform support, pros and cons, ease of use, and pricing. For instance, while Repeato, Autify, and testRigor offer very easy-to-learn, no-code solutions with AI capabilities, Playwright requires expert technical knowledge and is focused on web automation. Free plans are available for some tools, such as Repeato and testRigor, which could be attractive for smaller teams or individual developers. Pricing models vary significantly, from free open-source options like Playwright to tiered subscription models, allowing users to choose based on their budget and testing needs.
A closer look at the 10 Leapwork alternatives:
Specialization in Mobile UI Testing
- Repeato focuses exclusively on mobile UI testing for iOS and Android applications, employing computer vision and machine learning for enhanced test robustness.
- Leapwork, while offering no-code automation, spans a broader range of applications, including web and desktop environments, not specifically tailored to mobile.
- Both Repeato and Leapwork provide a no-code platform, facilitating test creation for users without coding expertise.
- Repeato is dedicated to mobile platforms, with strong support for both Android and iOS testing.
- Leapwork covers a wider array of platforms, including web and desktop applications, but does not have built-in support for mobile, relying on third-party tools.
- Each tool is designed with ease of use in mind, ensuring a smooth learning curve for QA professionals and developers.
Pricing and Access
- Repeato offers a free plan and transparent tiered pricing, making it accessible for individuals or small teams to start without upfront investment.
- Leapwork opts for a consultation-based pricing model, likely to suit businesses seeking a customized package.
On-Premise and CI/CD Integration
- Both tools support on-premise deployment and integrate with CI/CD pipelines, aligning with modern DevOps practices.
Use of AI and Computer Vision
- Artificial intelligence and computer vision are central to both Repeato and Leapwork, though implemented differently according to their primary platform focus.
- Repeato emphasizes a quick setup and test creation process, particularly for mobile app testing.
- Leapwork provides a guided tour and free account setup, though details on the ease of initial configuration are not specified.
When evaluating Repeato and Leapwork, it’s essential to consider the specific needs of your mobile testing strategy and the potential benefits of a tailored vs. transparent pricing model. Both tools aim to simplify the test automation process, but their distinct platform specializations and access models may influence your decision.
Pros and cons of Repeato
Pros of Repeato
- Simple and intuitive interface
- Easy setup process, no complex configurations needed
- Accessibility for both developers and non-programmers
- Supports various testing methods like clicks, drags and scripting
- Exceptional stability, no crashes or driver issues
- Regular updates with bug fixes and excellent customer support
- Great for mobile app testing, with efficient script creation
- Allows for hundreds of additional tests each day
- User-friendly, with easy adaptation and no initial setup required
- Recognizes elements using visual fingerprints for testing
- Allows for reusability and easy maintenance of scripts
- No prior training or complex coding skills needed
Cons of Repeato
- Some limitations for iOS applications when tapping on any system window outside of the app
- Access to CI/CD tools is only available at the enterprise level
- Occasional unknown errors while performing basic tasks, although they are quickly remedied in the next version.
More relevant posts:
TestComplete by Smartbear
TestComplete by SmartBear Software was a powerful, versatile automated UI testing tool that supported both scripted and scriptless approaches. It allowed quality assurance professionals and developers to create comprehensive tests across desktop, web, and mobile platforms. Its AI-powered object recognition engine was a standout feature, enabling precise and robust test execution.
However, TestComplete was discontinued in mid-2023, leaving many users in search of alternatives. One such alternative is Leapwork, which remains active and continues to offer a no-code test automation platform. Below are key differences between Leapwork and the now-defunct TestComplete:
- No-Code Platform: Leapwork continues to provide a no-code automation solution, making it accessible for non-technical users to create and execute tests without writing code. TestComplete also supported a scriptless approach but was discontinued.
- AI-Enhanced Automation: Both tools leveraged AI for test creation and maintenance, but with TestComplete no longer available, Leapwork offers a current solution that continues to evolve.
- Device and Platform Support: While TestComplete offered a comprehensive device farm for testing, Leapwork users must rely on its cross-browser and cross-device testing capabilities without an integrated device farm.
- Ease of Use: Leapwork emphasizes a visual approach to test automation, potentially making it easier for manual testers and those without extensive coding experience to adopt and use effectively. TestComplete was also user-friendly but required more technical proficiency.
- Integration and Support: Leapwork provides robust integration options with CI/CD tools and offers extensive support and resources for users. TestComplete also offered strong integration capabilities, but as the product is discontinued, ongoing support is no longer available.
- Industry Applications: Leapwork is tailored for a broad range of industries and continues to serve them with dedicated solutions, while TestComplete’s industry applications are now a part of its legacy.
- Community and Updates: Leapwork maintains an active community and regularly updates its platform. Since TestComplete’s discontinuation, there will be no further updates or community support.
In conclusion, for those who previously used or considered TestComplete, Leapwork stands out as a contemporary alternative that offers no-code automation, AI-powered capabilities, and a commitment to user support and industry-specific solutions. It’s a viable option for teams looking to transition to a modern test automation platform.
More relevant posts:
Autify is a sophisticated AI-powered software testing automation platform tailored to the needs of Quality Assurance (QA) professionals and developers. The platform’s capabilities are built around the concept of streamlining the software testing process through intelligent automation and user-friendly features.
Distinguishing Features of Autify
AI-Driven Test Maintenance
- Autify’s AI algorithms actively monitor UI changes and automatically update test scenarios, effectively reducing the maintenance burden often associated with automated testing.
Cross-Browser and Cross-Device Testing
- The platform supports testing across various browsers and devices, enabling comprehensive test coverage without the need for physical device management.
Parallel Execution and Step Groups
- Autify allows for simultaneous test runs and the grouping of actions, optimizing testing time and efficiency.
Integration with Development Tools
- It seamlessly integrates with established development and communication tools, fitting into existing workflows with minimal disruption.
Visual Regression Testing
- Autify includes visual regression testing to automatically detect and manage UI inconsistencies, aiding in maintaining visual quality.
Comparison with Leapwork
- Deployment: Unlike Leapwork, Autify does not offer an on-premise solution, focusing on a cloud-based approach.
- Reporting: Autify’s reporting capabilities, although not explicitly listed, are integral to its service offerings, ensuring thorough documentation of testing outcomes.
- Computer Vision: While Leapwork utilizes computer vision, Autify’s AI-driven features focus on maintaining and updating test scenarios.
- Ease of Use: Both platforms are considered very easy to learn, but Autify emphasizes its no-code approach, making it highly accessible for non-technical team members.
- Customization: Leapwork offers extensive customization options for its reports and dashboards, which may differ from Autify’s approach to data presentation and analysis.
- Mobile Automation: Leapwork requires third-party tools for mobile automation, whereas Autify has built-in capabilities for mobile web testing.
- Integration and Collaboration: Leapwork’s integrations are designed to enhance collaboration, a feature that Autify may offer in a different capacity through its own suite of integrations.
Addressing the Needs of QA and Developers
For QA professionals and developers in search of a test automation solution, Autify offers a balance between advanced AI capabilities and user-friendly operation. Its focus on no-code test creation and AI-driven maintenance differentiates it from Leapwork’s visual and smart recorder approach. Autify’s cloud-based platform is designed to facilitate agile testing methodologies, ensuring that the solution remains responsive to the dynamic needs of modern software development.
Note: Autify’s features and the comparisons made are based on the current understanding of the product’s offerings and may evolve over time. Users are recommended to request the latest information directly from Autify for the most accurate details.
Pros and cons of Autify
- No Coding Required: Autify allows users to create and execute test cases without any programming knowledge, thanks to its no-code, visual test editor.
- Time and Resource Efficiency: The platform’s no-code approach saves time and resources, allowing for quick design and implementation of test scenarios.
- AI-Powered Maintenance: Autify uses AI to maintain and automatically update test scenarios, reducing the risk of human error.
- Facilitates Agile Methodologies: Teams using Autify can complete sprints more efficiently, as it aids in testing scenarios and highlights when a review is needed.
- Quality Assurance with AI: Autify leverages AI for next-generation quality assurance testing.
- Rapid Test Framework Creation: Users can set up their test automation framework quickly due to Autify’s user-friendly interface and support channels.
- Test Recorder Feature: Autify’s test recorder simplifies the process of creating tests by recording user interactions.
- Intuitive Review Process: When Autify detects anomalies, it prompts for a review, showing screenshots for easy comparison of expected and actual results.
- Facilitates Continuous Testing: Autify can be integrated into release cycles for smoke-testing and can be triggered daily to ensure end-to-end test coverage.
- Supports Complex Applications: Autify is capable of handling end-to-end testing between complex systems like a NextJS frontend and a Rails backend.
- Limited Integrations: Autify’s integration options are limited, which could be expanded for better collaboration and workflow integration.
- Learning Curve: Despite its no-code approach, users may still need to invest time to deeply understand how to fully leverage Autify’s features.
- Lack of Self-Tutorial Videos: The absence of self-tutorial videos can make it challenging for new users to familiarize themselves with the platform.
- Challenges with Complex Data: Users have found it difficult to manage complex data such as product pricing and discounts during CPQ automation.
- Limited Customization for Metrics: There is a need for more control over customizing metrics to improve the customer experience.
- Initial Test Setup Required: Despite its ease of use, users still need to set up the initial tests, which may be a minor inconvenience.
- Potentially Overshadowed Manual Review: The AI’s prompt for reviews when anomalies are detected might lead to an over-reliance on the tool, potentially overshadowing manual quality assurance.
- Possible Overfitting to Previous Test Executions: While AI matching element characteristics is helpful, it may sometimes overfit to previous test results, leading to less flexibility in adapting to new changes.
- Limited Support for Certain Use-Cases: Some specific use-cases, especially those involving complex user interactions, may not be as easily automated with Autify.
- Dependence on Platform Updates: Users are reliant on frequent updates from Autify to improve UI responsiveness and compatibility, which may not always align with their needs.
More relevant posts:
ACCELQ is an AI-driven test automation platform that simplifies the creation, execution, and management of automated tests. Its codeless environment allows users from various technical backgrounds to engage in test automation efficiently.
Key Differences Compared to Leapwork
- On-Premise Deployment: ACCELQ supports on-premise deployment, offering additional flexibility for organizations with specific infrastructure requirements.
- Device Farm Integration: Unlike Leapwork, ACCELQ integrates with device farms, enhancing mobile application testing capabilities.
- Packaged Apps Automation: ACCELQ LIVE caters specifically to cloud and packaged applications, which is a distinct focus area not highlighted by Leapwork.
- Quality Lifecycle Management: ACCELQ provides comprehensive tools for the entire test design and change management process, whereas Leapwork focuses on ease of use and visual language for test creation.
- Salesforce Automation: ACCELQ offers specialized tools for Salesforce automation, presenting tailored solutions for this particular ecosystem.
- Industry Solutions: While both platforms serve various industries, ACCELQ emphasizes its broad range of industry-specific solutions including financial services, healthcare, and more.
- Learning and Community Support: ACCELQ actively promotes a learning environment with resources like a blog, events, and Q Academy, fostering skill development in agile testing.
In conclusion, ACCELQ and Leapwork both offer AI-powered, no-code test automation capabilities, but ACCELQ provides additional features such as on-premise deployment, device farm integration, and specialized packaged apps automation which may be beneficial depending on organizational needs.
Pros and cons of Accelq
- Efficiency and Speed: ACCELQ offers a streamlined testing process that enhances overall efficiency and speed.
- Self-Healing Capabilities: The tool has self-healing features that help maintain test accuracy over time.
- Improved Test Coverage: Users report that ACCELQ helps in achieving more comprehensive test coverage.
- Object Repository: A centralized object repository aids in better test management and reusability.
- Defined Framework: ACCELQ comes with a predefined framework that reduces setup time and effort.
- Logging Features: Detailed logging capabilities are available for better tracking and debugging of tests.
- Defined Methods: The tool provides predefined methods that can be used to streamline test creation.
- Salesforce Automation: It is particularly strong in automating tests for Salesforce applications.
- Easy Maintenance: Maintenance of tests is easier due to the tool’s design and features.
- Accelerated Development: Advanced AI capabilities in ACCELQ support faster development of test cases.
- Java Integration: The need for an in-built editor for Java integrations to custom methods is an area for improvement.
- Desktop UI Issues: Some users encounter issues with the Desktop UI, although alternatives like CLI are available.
- Grid Filters: There is a need for enhancements in Grid Filters to support custom and diverse filter items.
- Data Warehouse Integration: For those dealing with heterogeneous data sources, there may be challenges without a centralized data warehouse.
- ETL Testing Limitations: While ACCELQ simplifies ETL testing, there may be complexities when dealing with varied data transformations and compliance standards.
- Learning Curve: New users might experience a learning curve due to the advanced features and AI capabilities.
- Cost: The pricing model may be a consideration for smaller teams or individual users.
- Limited Language Support: Users who prefer programming languages other than Java may find limited support.
- Customization Limits: Some users may require more customization options than what is currently available.
- Documentation and Support: While not always the case, some users might seek more comprehensive documentation and support for complex scenarios.
More relevant posts:
testRigor is a software testing tool that emphasizes AI-powered test automation through a platform that allows test creation in plain English, interpreted and automated by the system. Its unique selling points include AI-generated tests based on end-user behavior, plain English test cases, stability without reliance on XPath, and adaptability to changes with quick editing tools.
When comparing testRigor to Leapwork, several differences become apparent:
- Free Plan Availability: testRigor offers a free version, which is particularly beneficial for small teams or individual developers wanting to try out the tool before committing financially.
- Device Farm Integration: testRigor integrates with third-party device farms, enabling testing on a wide range of devices without the need for an in-house device lab.
- Language for Test Creation: Unlike Leapwork’s visual approach, testRigor allows tests to be written in plain English, making it accessible for non-technical users and reducing the learning curve.
- Computer Vision: Leapwork utilizes computer vision for identifying UI elements, which is not a feature mentioned in testRigor’s capabilities. This could be a deciding factor for teams relying heavily on visual UI testing.
- Industry Focus: Leapwork caters to a broad range of industries with tailored solutions, while testRigor focuses on the general efficiency and productivity of QA processes across platforms.
- Educational Materials: testRigor provides extensive resources such as documentation, tutorials, and certification programs, which may be more comprehensive than Leapwork’s offering.
For QA professionals and developers, the choice between testRigor and Leapwork may hinge on specific project requirements and team expertise:
- Teams with non-technical members who wish to contribute to test automation might find testRigor’s plain English test creation more suitable.
- Organizations that require extensive testing across multiple devices may benefit from testRigor’s integration with device farms.
- If visual testing and computer vision are critical, Leapwork’s capabilities in these areas might be more compelling.
In conclusion, both testRigor and Leapwork provide robust no-code, AI-powered test automation solutions, but they cater to different preferences and requirements. testRigor’s strengths lie in its natural language processing and device farm integration, whereas Leapwork offers a visual approach with reusable components and a focus on a wide range of industries.
Pros and cons of testRigor
- Allows writing and generating test scripts using plain English statements.
- Offers integration with various tools such as JIRA and TestRail.
- Capable of running tests on multiple browsers and devices simultaneously.
- Features automatic test script generation, saving time and effort.
- Provides efficient customer support, ensuring ease of use and implementation.
- Eliminates the need for learning different programming languages or testing frameworks.
- Enables the entire team to write end-to-end UI tests quickly without programming knowledge.
- Generates human-readable test scripts that are easily understandable by anyone.
- Automates test cases in a very short span of time.
- Serves as a scalable solution for building a software testing process in non-software companies.
- The tool has been reported to crash occasionally, leading to more test case failures.
- The cost of server resources may be a concern for some users.
- Lacks educational materials to help improve QA efficiency for companies with less experience.
- Some users have experienced issues with server responsiveness.
- Initial challenges may be faced by companies with a limited QA team and lack of software testing knowledge.
More relevant posts:
Katalon is an AI-augmented software quality management platform that offers a blend of low-code and full-code testing capabilities. It is designed to be easy to learn and adopt, with features such as record-and-playback and auto-capture of test objects, providing a balance between ease of use and comprehensive testing functionalities.
- Katalon allows for no-code, low-code, and full-code approaches, catering to both non-technical and technical users.
- Leapwork focuses on a no-code, visual language for test creation, targeting users who prefer a coding-free environment.
AI and Innovation:
- Katalon integrates AI features like self-healing tests and smart wait scheduling, enhancing test stability and efficiency.
- Leapwork also utilizes AI but emphasizes its visual test creation and debugging capabilities.
- Katalon provides scalable testing solutions, such as Katalon TestCloud, for on-demand test environments.
- Leapwork emphasizes ease of scaling with reusable components and sub-flows.
Reporting and Analytics:
- Katalon offers real-time insights through Katalon TestOps, focusing on test coverage and release readiness.
- Leapwork provides hypervisual debugging tools, including video recordings and activity logs.
Device and Cross-Browser Testing:
- Katalon extends its cross-browser and cross-device testing with AWS Device Farm integration.
- Leapwork supports cross-browser and cross-device testing but does not specifically mention integration with device farms.
Pricing and ROI:
- Katalon starts with a free trial and offers flexible pricing models aimed at providing high ROI.
- Leapwork promotes a customizable pricing approach, providing personalized quotes based on the organization’s needs.
- Katalon is versatile across industries like finance, healthcare, and retail, with a unified platform for web, mobile, API, and desktop testing.
- Leapwork also serves various industries and supports applications like Dynamics 365, Salesforce, and SAP.
Integration and Support:
- Katalon boasts robust native integrations for a seamless DevOps ecosystem and extensive learning resources.
- Leapwork integrates with CI/CD tools and offers a knowledge base and technical support for users.
- Both Katalon and Leapwork offer on-premise deployment options for teams with specific infrastructure needs.
By comparing these differences, QA professionals and developers can better understand how Katalon and Leapwork cater to distinct testing preferences and requirements, aiding in the decision-making process for selecting the right automation tool for their team.
Pros and cons of Katalon
- Reduced Effort in Test Maintenance: Users report that Katalon simplifies the creation and maintenance of reusable methods, which can reduce time and effort significantly.
- Built-in Reporting Features: The platform automatically captures snapshots on test failures, which enhances the efficiency of reporting.
- Comprehensive Test Features: Offers features like Record, Object Spy, and Frame Handling, which streamline the testing process.
- Low Learning Curve: Katalon is accessible to manual testers, allowing them to transition to automation testing with minimal training.
- Cross-Functional Testing Support: It supports UI, API, and Mobile testing within a single platform, reducing the need to manage different tools for different types of testing.
- Community and Customer Support: There is strong community support for the free version and dedicated customer support for the paid version.
- Facilitates Cross-Functional Roles: Enables testers to handle both manual and automated testing, effectively becoming cross-functional team members.
- CI/CD Integration: For those who opt for the paid version, it offers Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment integration.
- Codeless Automation: Provides a codeless automation option, making it accessible for teams with limited coding knowledge.
- Efficiency in Test Execution: Users find that Katalon allows for faster test execution compared to manual testing, enabling more extensive and frequent testing.
- Separate Licensing: Some users find the need for separate licenses for different features to be a disadvantage.
- Cost for Advanced Features: Advanced features like CI/CD integration and Visual Testing require a paid license.
- Mobile Execution Issues: There have been reports of instability during mobile test execution, where sessions unexpectedly close.
- High Resource Usage: Users with less powerful hardware have experienced performance issues, indicating the platform may require substantial system resources.
- Lack of Support for Legacy Systems: Katalon currently does not support automation testing for legacy Java UIs, which can be a limitation for some organizations.
- Limited TestOps Analytics: The free version has limitations on the analytical results available through TestOps, pushing users towards the paid version for full functionality.
- Separate Licensing for Cloud Features: Features like Parallel Cloud Execution and Cloud Tunnelling require additional licensing, which can increase costs.
- Limited Free Features: Some users feel that the most valuable features are locked behind the paid version, which can be a barrier for smaller teams or individual users.
- Hardware Demands: The platform’s demand on hardware resources can lead to slower performance on less capable machines.
- No Bundled Packages: Users would prefer bundled packages for the various Katalon products to simplify licensing and possibly reduce costs.
More relevant posts:
As QA professionals and developers, selecting the right test automation solution is pivotal to the efficiency and effectiveness of your testing processes. Two prominent options in the market are Sauce Labs and Leapwork. Here, we’ll explore the key differences between these platforms to aid your decision-making process.
Sauce Labs: Emphasis on Mobile App Testing
Sauce Labs offers a comprehensive suite for mobile app testing, emphasizing thorough validation across a multitude of devices and platforms. Its key features include:
- Real Device Cloud: Access to a vast collection of iOS and Android devices for testing.
- Emulators & Simulators: Cost-effective early-stage testing tools that integrate with CI/CD pipelines.
- Beta Testing & App Distribution: Streamlined beta testing with real-time video and bug reporting.
- Error Monitoring & Reporting: Tools for identifying and resolving application errors with detailed crash analytics.
Leapwork: A Visual No-Code Test Automation Approach
While Leapwork isn’t described in detail here, we know that it provides a no-code, visual test automation platform. Its strengths lie in enabling non-technical users to automate complex tests and support various applications and technologies.
When considering Sauce Labs and Leapwork, note these contrasts:
- Device Farm: Sauce Labs includes a device farm for testing, which Leapwork lacks.
- Scheduler: Leapwork has a scheduler feature, not explicitly mentioned for Sauce Labs.
- Ease of Use: Leapwork is highlighted for its very easy learning curve, whereas Sauce Labs is described as easy to learn.
- Mobile Automation: Leapwork relies on third-party tools for mobile automation, while Sauce Labs offers built-in capabilities.
- Platform: Both support testing on web, Android, and iOS platforms.
- On-Premise Option: Both platforms provide on-premise solutions.
- AI and Computer Vision: Both employ AI and computer vision in their testing processes.
Understanding these differences is crucial in determining which platform better suits your specific testing requirements, whether you prioritize a robust mobile testing environment or a simplified, no-code automation experience.
Pros and cons of Sauce Labs
- Easy to integrate with existing codebases, enhancing the adaptability for teams.
- Offers a high degree of versatility for testing across different browsers, devices, and platforms.
- Provides an intuitive user interface that is frequently updated based on user feedback.
- Regularly introduces new features and improvements to the service.
- Boasts a supportive community for troubleshooting and user assistance.
- Enables effective cross-browser and cross-platform testing without complex setups.
- Supports the latest web browsers and mobile operating systems for both forward and backward compatibility testing.
- Facilitates parallel execution, allowing numerous instances to run simultaneously, which significantly reduces test suite execution time.
- Features video recordings of tests to help identify where failures occur.
- Includes a platform configurator to assist in running test suites on real mobile applications.
- The cost can be high due to the reliance on virtual machines.
- Users may occasionally encounter server errors.
- Customer support response times can be slow.
- Frequent changes in account managers can disrupt service continuity.
- Lacks an option to export test reports in formats such as TestNG, Cucumber, and Extent directly from Sauce Labs.
- The process of copying usernames and passwords from the profile can be cumbersome.
- Errors during testing can occur, requiring users to rely on video features for debugging.
- Does not provide email triage for report notifications of test suites.
- Running real mobile device tests with the same web browser suite can present challenges.
- The time taken for script execution can be a concern for some users.
More relevant posts:
mabl offers a low-code test automation platform that aims to streamline the process of creating, executing, and maintaining automated tests. This solution is designed to support high-velocity software teams in integrating automated end-to-end tests throughout the entire development lifecycle.
Differences When Compared to Leapwork
- Platform Focus: While Leapwork supports automation for web, Android, and iOS, mabl specializes in web application testing, providing a focused toolset for this platform.
- Code vs. No-Code: Leapwork is a no-code platform, ideal for non-technical users, whereas mabl offers a low-code environment that can benefit those with some technical expertise.
- On-Premise Option: Leapwork provides an on-premise solution, while mabl operates as a SaaS platform, emphasizing ease of deployment and scalability without infrastructure maintenance.
- Mobile Testing: Leapwork has capabilities for Android and iOS automation, which mabl does not natively support, focusing instead on web and mobile web applications.
- Test Creation: Both platforms use AI and provide easy learning paths, but mabl emphasizes rapid test development with auto-healing technologies, which is essential for Agile environments.
- Integration and Reporting: While both platforms offer robust reporting and integrate with CI/CD pipelines, mabl showcases its extensive integration with tools like Jira, Bitbucket, Gitlab, GitHub, and Postman, which may appeal to teams already using these services.
- Community and Resources: mabl places a strong emphasis on educational resources, with offerings like mabl University to enhance user skills in test automation.
In assessing these differences, QA professionals and developers should consider the specific needs of their software development processes and the platforms they work with. The choice between Leapwork and mabl will largely depend on the required ease of use, the need for mobile testing, and the desired level of technical engagement in the test creation process.
Pros and cons of Mabl
- Easy to implement and deploy across teams.
- Comprehensive documentation with practical examples and strong support from the mabl team.
- Supports multi-browser and API testing, including Postman collection imports for end-to-end user flow automation.
- No infrastructure maintenance required with a low-code approach suitable for non-technical teams.
- Demonstrates good return on investment when compared to the cost of hiring full-time testing personnel.
- Facilitates rapid test case development with built-in auto-healing capabilities, essential for Agile environments.
- Features an intuitive visual trainer for quick creation and updating of test cases.
- Supports multi-tab testing in browsers and captures visual comparisons and performance metrics.
- Enables efficient test creation through features like data tables for testing multiple scenarios.
- Offers SaaS automation, detailed test results, and a new learning platform (mabl University) for user training.
- Does not support native mobile test automation.
- Lacks integration with some popular test management tools like Testrail.
- Limited reporting options and areas for improvement in security features.
- Occasional discrepancies between cloud and local executions, leading to unexpected failures.
- The mabl documentation could benefit from more detailed, specific examples.
- The use of labels for test organization can be confusing and has a learning curve.
- Challenges with the Trainer incorrectly recording steps, requiring re-recording to fix issues.
- Inconsistencies with tests that only run successfully within a test plan and not independently.
- Lack of a more extensive community for user support compared to open-source alternatives.
- Auto-healing feature can be overly aggressive and may incorrectly modify tests without user intent.
More relevant posts:
Mobot vs. Leapwork: Distinguishing Automated Testing Solutions
In the search for the right automated testing solution, QA professionals and developers often weigh the unique offerings of tools like Mobot and Leapwork. Here, we will summarize the main aspects of Mobot and highlight the key differences compared to Leapwork.
Mobot: A Brief Summary
Mobot provides an innovative approach to mobile QA through a combination of AI, ML, and mechanical robot technology. Its services are tailored to enhance the QA, engineering, and marketing processes for mobile applications, offering detailed coverage and real-world interaction testing. With over 300 iOS and Android devices available, Mobot allows for expansive device testing without the overhead of device ownership.
Key Offerings of Mobot
- Mobot Live: A self-service platform for QA teams with live robot camera feeds.
- Mobot Managed: A fully-managed service delivering rapid test results and complete test coverage for engineering teams.
- Mobot Insights: Campaign monitoring and validation for marketing, including automated bug reporting.
- Real robots perform physical tests on a vast array of mobile devices.
- Ability to handle complex mobile functionalities that are hard to automate.
- Use cases include ensuring mobile campaign performance and achieving 100% testing coverage.
Highlighting the Differences
- On-Premise Availability: Leapwork can be deployed on-premise, offering additional security and control, whereas Mobot is focused on its cloud-based service.
- Device Farm: Mobot provides access to a device farm, enabling real device testing, which is not a feature of Leapwork.
- Mobile Testing: While Leapwork facilitates automation mainly through a visual no-code platform for web and mobile web, Mobot specializes in mobile app testing using physical robots.
- Ease of Use: Both tools are designed to be user-friendly and require no coding skills; however, Leapwork emphasizes a visual approach to test creation, whereas Mobot relies on robotic execution.
- Integration: Leapwork offers strong integration features for CI/CD workflows, which is a shared feature with Mobot.
- Support: Both solutions provide robust support, but Leapwork’s offerings are more extensive, with a wider range of training and resources available.
In essence, Mobot stands out for its unique robot-powered testing on real devices, while Leapwork provides a no-code, visual test automation tool that caters to a broader range of applications and technologies.
More relevant posts:
When choosing between Playwright and Leapwork for web automation, it’s important to understand their differences to make an informed decision that aligns with your team’s skills and project requirements.
Playwright: A Node.js Library for Browser Automation
Playwright is a Node.js library aimed at developers and QA professionals who are proficient in coding. It provides a comprehensive API for automating browser actions and supports tests across multiple browsers using the same codebase.
- Cross-Browser Testing: Playwright allows testing on Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit, ensuring consistent behavior and performance across these browsers. Leapwork, while also supporting cross-browser testing, is more focused on a no-code visual approach.
- Open Source: Playwright is open-source and free to use, which contrasts with Leapwork’s commercial, quote-based pricing model.
- Technical Expertise: Playwright caters to users with technical expertise, as it involves working directly with code, whereas Leapwork is designed for users regardless of their technical background.
- Community vs. Commercial Support: Being open-source, Playwright relies on community support, while Leapwork provides commercial support as part of its offering.
- Platform Focus: Playwright is solely focused on web applications, whereas Leapwork also extends to Android and iOS automation.
- Tooling and Debugging: Playwright offers powerful developer tools like Codegen, Playwright Inspector, and Trace Viewer. Leapwork provides a visual debugging experience with video recordings and data-level insights.
In summary, Playwright is a more technical, code-driven tool for web automation, best suited for developers and QA professionals comfortable with scripting. Leapwork, on the other hand, offers a no-code, visual approach, potentially lowering the barrier to entry for test automation but at a cost. The choice between Playwright and Leapwork will depend on your team’s coding skills, budget, and the complexity of your web automation needs.
- Resilient Testing: Auto-wait feature for actions, web-first assertions, and tools for debugging test failures like tracing, capturing execution traces, videos, and screenshots.
- No Compromises on Test Scenarios: Runs tests out-of-process, enabling testing of multiple tabs and user scenarios, and generates trusted events similar to real user interactions.
- Isolation and Speed: Uses a new browser context for each test to ensure isolation with minimal overhead and allows for reusing authentication states across tests.
- Powerful Tooling: Includes Codegen for generating test scripts, Playwright Inspector for inspecting pages and generating selectors, and Trace Viewer for detailed test failure investigations.
- Cross-Browser Testing: Supports testing across multiple browsers (Chromium, Firefox, WebKit) on different operating systems, and can execute browsers in headless mode for automated test environments.
- Forks: 3194
- Stars: 57501
- Commits: 11824
- Last commit on: 2023-12-21T09:45:14Z
More relevant posts:
Conclusion: Evaluating Leapwork Alternatives for Test Automation
In the realm of test automation, the quest for the right tool is paramount. Our examination of Leapwork alternatives has traversed a landscape of diverse offerings, each with its unique strengths and focal areas. From the AI-augmented capabilities of Repeato to the robust device testing of Mobot, the selection caters to a wide array of testing demands and preferences.
Repeato stands out with its specialization in Mobile UI Testing, leveraging computer vision and machine learning for enhanced test robustness. Its no-code approach and dedicated support for both Android and iOS testing make it a strong contender for mobile-centric automation efforts. The Repeato vs Leapwork comparison offers a detailed insight into how Repeato measures up against Leapwork’s broader application range.
While Leapwork provides a versatile no-code automation platform, alternatives like Playwright bring code-based precision to the table, appealing to those with technical expertise. The allure of open-source with community support, as seen in Playwright, contrasts with the structured commercial support of Leapwork.
The decision matrix for selecting an automation tool is complex, influenced by factors such as platform specialization, ease of use, integration capabilities, and pricing models. Whether your priority lies in mobile app testing, cross-browser consistency, or no-code simplicity, the alternatives presented provide a spectrum of solutions to fit your specific testing strategy.
For a deeper dive into test automation, our blog offers an extensive repository of knowledge. Explore comparisons like Repeato vs TestComplete or learn about the nuances of mobile app testing in articles like Mobile App Testing Checklist and Android Test Automation.
In conclusion, when it comes to test automation tools, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Each tool, including Repeato, presents its unique set of features and benefits. It is the alignment with your project’s needs and your team’s skills that will guide you to the optimal choice. As you approach this decision, keep in mind the importance of scalability, integration, and support that will ensure the longevity and success of your automation endeavors.