Leapwork vs Sofy

Leapwork vs Sofy

5 February 2024 Stephan Petzl Leave a comment Tool comparisons

In the rapidly evolving landscape of test automation, Leapwork and Sofy stand out as leading no-code platforms, simplifying the testing process for various applications. Leapwork excels with its visual language and AI capabilities, supporting web and mobile testing, while Sofy brings unique strengths with its AI-powered mobile app testing and access to real device farms.

Both platforms are designed to enhance productivity without necessitating coding expertise. This article will compare their core features, usability, and industry applications to help you determine the best fit for 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 Sofy

Free Plan
On Premise
Device Farm
No Code
Uses Ai
Generates Reports
Uses Computer VisionN/A
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.
– The support team is highly responsive and provides solid assistance.
– Mobile testing capabilities are particularly strong.
– Enables creation of test data and handling conditional logic through a record-and-play feature.
– Integration with JIRA and CI/CD pipelines enhances workflow.
– Facilitates rapid increase in test coverage.
– The ability to make API requests within tests allows for more comprehensive testing scenarios.
– Described as a user-friendly no-code solution, making it accessible for startups and non-developers.
– Encourages best practices in test writing through collaboration with a technical account manager.
– Supports testing on real devices and can connect to other devices via Bluetooth.
– Actively listens to customer feedback and regularly introduces new, helpful features.
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.
– Some users may find the product’s capabilities limited for cutting-edge or unique test cases.
– Web testing features are not as robust as mobile testing features.
– Issues with JIRA integration have been reported.
– The platform may require a learning curve and initial setup effort to integrate with existing CI flows.
– Test execution speed has been reported as somewhat slow by some users.
– Uses a minute-based pricing system, which may not suit all types of projects or budgets.
– Some users find the overall pricing to be on the higher side.
– Requires effort to automate test cases and connect physical devices via Bluetooth, despite the ease of use.
– The product is still growing and may not have all the desired features yet.
– Requires some technical effort to fully integrate test results with other continuous integration flows.

Pricing Overview of Leapwork and Sofy

Before delving into the comparison of the pricing models of Leapwork and Sofy, let’s briefly outline the pricing structure each product offers.

Leapwork Pricing Summary

Leapwork operates on a customizable pricing model that is designed to cater to the specific needs of different businesses and teams. They do not have set pricing tiers publicly available; instead, they offer a consultative approach to pricing. Prospective users are encouraged to contact Leapwork directly to discuss their needs, which allows Leapwork to provide a personalized quote that aligns with the client’s business objectives and team requirements.

Sofy Pricing Summary

Sofy utilizes a tiered pricing model with three distinct levels: Starter, Pro, and Enterprise. The Starter plan is priced at $549 per month on an annual contract and includes basic features suitable for smaller teams. The Pro plan, at $1499 per month, is tailored for teams needing more resources, offering additional real device minutes and parallel sessions. For larger enterprises with complex requirements, Sofy provides custom solutions that are priced upon consultation with their sales team. All plans come with a set of core features, with higher tiers adding more advanced tools and dedicated support. Sofy also offers a free trial to test their service before committing to a purchase.

Comparison of Pricing Models

When comparing the pricing models of Leapwork and Sofy, several key differences and commonalities stand out:

Common Points

  • Custom Solutions for Enterprises: Both Leapwork and Sofy recognize the diverse needs of large organizations and offer custom enterprise solutions. These are tailored to the specific demands of the business and involve direct consultation with the sales team.
  • Target Audience: Both products are designed with different team sizes and QA needs in mind, acknowledging that a one-size-fits-all approach is not feasible.
  • Consultative Approach for Customization: Leapwork uses a consultative approach for all its pricing, while Sofy reserves this for their Enterprise customers, implying that both value direct communication to understand and meet customer needs effectively.

Key Differences

  • Pricing Transparency: Sofy provides clear pricing information for their Starter and Pro plans, offering immediate transparency for potential users. In contrast, Leapwork opts for a fully personalized pricing strategy, requiring direct contact for any pricing information.
  • Tiered vs. Customizable Pricing: Sofy has predefined tiers with set features and limits, making it easier for customers to understand what they’re getting for their money. Leapwork, on the other hand, creates a unique pricing plan for each customer, which can offer more flexibility but also requires a more involved decision-making process.
  • Free Trial Option: Sofy offers a free trial, allowing users to experience the product before making a financial commitment. Leapwork does not mention a free trial, focusing instead on tailored quotes.
  • Pricing Model Structure: Sofy’s tiered model is based on the number of real device minutes, parallel sessions, and additional support features, which scales with the price. Leapwork’s pricing details are not specified, but their personalized approach suggests a more flexible structure that is negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

In conclusion, Sofy’s tiered pricing model offers transparency and immediate understanding for potential customers, while Leapwork’s customizable pricing ensures that each customer only pays for what they truly need, albeit at the expense of upfront pricing clarity. Readers should consider their preference for pricing transparency and the level of customization they require when choosing between these two products.

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