Leapwork vs Applitools

Leapwork vs Applitools

5 February 2024 Stephan Petzl Leave a comment Tool comparisons

In the rapidly evolving landscape of test automation, two platforms stand out: Leapwork and Applitools. Leapwork is a no-code, AI-enhanced test automation platform that streamlines testing across web and mobile with a strong focus on ease of use and support for non-technical users.


On the other hand, Applitools leverages Visual AI to boost test efficiency and accuracy, offering unique features like the Ultrafast Test Cloud and Eyes validation engine, along with no-code capabilities. This comparison will clarify their distinct features, helping you decide which platform best fits your testing needs.


Latest update: 1/9/2024, 5:35:10 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.


Feature comparison of Leapwork and Applitools

FeatureLeapworkApplitools
Free Plan
On Premise
Device FarmN/A
SchedulerN/A
No Code
Uses Ai
Generates Reports
Uses Computer Vision
Platformsweb,Android,iOSweb,Android,iOS
Ease Of Usevery easy to learneasy to learn
Is Open Source
Support Included
Review Pros – Comprehensive data storage abilities without being locked into a single solution.
– Excellent support with timely solutions upon request.
– Ease of use in creating subflows for reusable tasks, which benefits non-technical testers.
– Enables manual testers to create automation without extensive coding knowledge.
– GUI-based platform that is easy to learn with a supportive knowledge base.
– No technical prerequisites required for use.
– In-depth strategy editor that supports web, desktop, and API automation.
– Seamless integration of test cases involving both desktop and web applications.
– Video export feature of executed test cases for documentation and training.
– Excellent debugging functionality, including live video execution and video recording.
– Easy to use and implement into existing automation workflows.
– Customer-focused support and assistance.
– Facilitates the detection of unintended changes, especially in large applications.
– Shallow learning curve, making it accessible for QA teams with less coding experience.
– Enhances cross-browser and cross-device testing capabilities.
– Visual regression testing moves beyond simple visibility checks to ensure visual perfection.
– Integration with popular frameworks like Cypress for immediate feedback on changes.
– Offers multiple SDKs for ease of creating and comparing visual snapshots.
– Features like self-healing capabilities for cloud runners improve user experience.
– Supports visual validation for accessibility and early component validation in the delivery cycle.
Review Cons – Minor user interface issues, such as watermarks not disappearing when typing.
– Lack of check-in control in the Platform version compared to the Enterprise version.
– Reporting features could be enhanced, such as email reports and dashboard improvements.
– Identifying some web elements can be counterintuitive and may require advanced knowledge.
– Mobile automation not built-in; reliance on third-party providers or tools is necessary.
– Test execution can be slow when using remote agents.
– Limited functionality for executing sub-flows compared to main flows.
– Data-driven test automation from Excel is not dynamic and could be improved.
– Limited Excel integration with only basic Read and Write blocks available.
– Still an on-premises tool; could benefit from being cloud-based with automated backups and disaster recovery.
– The platform can be sluggish on slower connections or computers.
– Initial maintenance and setup may require some time to get used to.
– Error reporting can be problematic for automated report generation.
– Snapshot quality issues have been observed, although updates have addressed them.
– Lack of built-in support for Azure DevOps Server on pipelines (though now available and updated).
– Misuse of the tool due to a lack of understanding of its collaborative potential.
– Branch and baseline management can be confusing, especially for non-technical team members.
– The cost of Applitools can be prohibitive, especially for large companies requiring many accounts.
– The GUI, while user-friendly, may oversimplify for advanced users or specific use cases.
– While the tool is mature and comprehensive, its powerful features come with a high price tag.


Pricing Comparison: Leapwork vs. Applitools

Leapwork Pricing Overview

Leapwork Test Automation offers a custom pricing model tailored to meet the individual needs of businesses of various sizes. The company emphasizes a personalized approach, encouraging potential customers to contact them directly to discuss their specific requirements. This ensures that organizations receive a pricing plan that is custom-fit to their unique situation, including their business objectives and team dynamics.

Applitools Pricing Overview

Applitools adopts a tiered pricing model with its Visual AI platform. The service provides a range of plans, including a free account with limited usage, a Starter plan with basic features for small teams, and advanced Eyes and Ultrafast Test Cloud plans for enterprises requiring extensive resources. These plans cater to different levels of usage and offer varying degrees of support and cloud infrastructure options. Applitools also extends discounts to startups and open-source projects.

Comparing the Pricing Models

When comparing Leapwork and Applitools, several key differences and similarities in their pricing models emerge:

Common Points:

  • Both Leapwork and Applitools are designed to accommodate a range of testing needs, from smaller teams to large enterprises.
  • Each company emphasizes the scalability of their products, ensuring that customers can adjust their usage based on project size and company growth.

Differences:

  • Customization vs. Tiered Plans: Leapwork does not provide set pricing tiers; instead, it opts for a custom quote approach. This could be advantageous for businesses seeking a more tailored solution. In contrast, Applitools offers defined pricing tiers, giving customers immediate insight into potential costs and features without the need for direct contact.
  • Pricing Transparency: Applitools provides a transparent overview of its pricing structure on its website, including a free tier, which may appeal to users who prefer to understand potential costs upfront. Leapwork requires direct engagement to obtain pricing information, which could be seen as a barrier to some or a benefit to those looking for a personalized service.
  • Resource Allocation: Applitools specifies the number of users, tests, and parallel test runs available at each pricing level, whereas Leapwork’s personalized approach likely involves negotiating these details based on the client’s needs.
  • Cloud Infrastructure Options: Applitools’ higher-tier plans include support for public, dedicated, and on-premise clouds, which is particularly relevant for enterprises with specific compliance or security requirements. Leapwork’s model does not explicitly detail cloud options, presumably because these are part of the customization process.
  • Discounts: Applitools openly offers discounts to certain groups, which can be a deciding factor for startups and open-source projects with limited budgets. Leapwork’s model does not mention discounts, but the custom pricing could inherently account for such considerations.

Conclusion:

Understanding the key differences between Leapwork’s custom pricing model and Applitools’ tiered plans is vital for businesses to make an informed decision. Leapwork is suitable for organizations seeking a bespoke solution that aligns closely with their specific needs, while Applitools is ideal for those who prefer clear, predefined options with the flexibility to scale. Both models cater to a spectrum of business sizes, but the approach to pricing and resource allocation differs significantly, highlighting the importance of aligning the choice with the company’s procurement preferences and project requirements.

Like this article? there’s more where that came from.