Leapwork vs Mobot

Leapwork vs Mobot

5 February 2024 Stephan Petzl Leave a comment Tool comparisons

In the rapidly evolving realm of automated testing, Leapwork and Mobot emerge as distinctive solutions tailored to enhance QA processes. Leapwork, a no-code test automation platform, offers a visual approach to test creation across web and mobile platforms, boasting AI capabilities and extensive support without necessitating coding expertise.


On the flip side, Mobot leverages mechanical robots powered by AI for robust mobile app testing, providing a unique device farm service for real-world interactions. Understanding their core features and industry applications is key to discerning which tool best aligns with your testing strategy.


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 Mobot

FeatureLeapworkMobot
Free Plan
On Premise
Device Farm
Scheduler
No Code
Uses Ai
Generates Reports
Uses Computer Vision
Platformsweb,Android,iOSweb,Android,iOS
Ease Of Usevery easy to learnvery easy 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.
N/A
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.
N/A


Pricing Model Comparison: Leapwork vs. Mobot

Leapwork Pricing Overview

Leapwork Test Automation provides a customizable pricing model intended to serve businesses of various sizes and diverse needs. The cost is not standardized; instead, Leapwork offers personalized quotes to ensure that each organization receives a plan that is tailored to its specific requirements. The focus is on aligning the pricing with the business objectives and team dynamics of the potential user. To obtain a quote, interested parties need to contact Leapwork directly.

Mobot Pricing Overview

Mobot, on the other hand, employs a tiered pricing strategy which caters to different team functionalities. The pricing model is more transparent, with specific starting prices for different service levels:

  • Mobot Live: Aimed at QA engineers, offering self-service, live robot testing starting at $249 per month for one parallel test.
  • Mobot Managed: Designed for engineering teams, this fully managed testing service includes test suite maintenance, starting at $1,999 per month.
  • Mobot Insights: Targeted at marketing and product teams, providing mobile campaign monitoring and performance reports, also starting at $1,999 per month.

Each tier grants access to over 300 mobile devices and includes premium support. Free trials are also available for users to test the services before committing.

Comparing the Pricing Models

When comparing Leapwork with Mobot, several key differences and commonalities in their pricing models emerge:

Customization vs. Standardization:

  • Leapwork does not have set pricing tiers; instead, it offers a bespoke pricing model that is designed after discussing with the potential user.
  • Mobot provides clear, tier-based pricing with defined costs that increase with service levels and the number of parallel tests required.

Transparency:

  • Leapwork requires direct contact for a quote, which may appeal to organizations looking for a tailored solution but can be a barrier for those seeking quick pricing information.
  • Mobot’s pricing is upfront and can be easily found, allowing for immediate budget considerations and comparisons.

Service Orientation:

  • Leapwork’s approach is consultative, potentially offering more flexibility for businesses with unique needs.
  • Mobot’s tiered model is structured around specific team roles and needs, which can simplify the decision-making process for businesses with clear requirements.

Free Trials:

  • Leapwork does not explicitly mention free trials, focusing instead on personalized quotes.
  • Mobot offers free trials, enabling users to experience the service before investing.

Accessibility:

  • Leapwork’s model can be less accessible to small businesses or startups that prefer clear, upfront costs without the need for negotiation.
  • Mobot’s entry-level tier is accessible for smaller teams, with the option to scale as needed.

In summary, Leapwork’s pricing model is ideal for companies that prefer a tailored approach and have unique automation needs that may not fit into a standard pricing tier. Conversely, Mobot’s tiered pricing provides clear options for different teams and use cases, offering a straightforward choice for businesses that value transparency and ease of understanding in their pricing structure.

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