Leapwork vs testrigor

Leapwork vs testrigor

1 February 2024 Stephan Petzl Leave a comment Tool comparisons

In the evolving landscape of test automation, testRigor and Leapwork stand out as no-code, AI-powered solutions designed to streamline the testing process. testRigor appeals with its plain English test creation and integration with third-party device farms, making it accessible for non-technical users.


Conversely, Leapwork offers a visual approach with reusable components and computer vision capabilities, catering to a broad range of industries. Both platforms facilitate CI/CD integration and report generation, yet they differ in their support for device farm testing and the availability of a free plan. This article delves into the nuances of each tool to help you discern which aligns best with your testing needs.


Latest update: 1/31/2024, 3:45:26 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 testRigor

FeatureLeapworktestRigor
Free Plan
On Premise
Device Farm
Scheduler
No Code
Uses Ai
Generates Reports
Uses Computer VisionN/A
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.
– 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.
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 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.


Pricing Comparison: testRigor vs. Leapwork Test Automation Tools

testRigor Pricing Overview

testRigor offers a tiered pricing model with three main plans:

  • Free Plan: Targeted at open-source projects with unlimited users, cases, and suites, but with public visibility.
  • Private Plan: Priced at $900 per month, this plan includes private tests, a 14-day trial, and the option for additional parallelizations.
  • Enterprise Plan: Customized pricing for larger organizations, featuring a dedicated manager, Slack support, and possible on-premise deployment.

All plans include unlimited users and test cases, catering to a variety of testing needs and organization sizes.

Leapwork Pricing Overview

Leapwork follows a customizable pricing approach:

  • Custom Pricing: Leapwork provides quotes tailored to the specific needs of the business, accommodating various sizes and teams.
  • Direct Contact: Potential users must reach out to Leapwork to discuss their requirements and obtain a pricing plan that fits their unique situation.

Leapwork’s model is designed to ensure that each organization receives a personalized solution.

Comparison of Pricing Models

When comparing the pricing models of testRigor and Leapwork, several key differences and commonalities emerge:

Common Points:

  • Flexibility: Both tools offer pricing models that aim to cater to different organizational needs, whether it’s through tiered options or customizable plans.
  • Unlimited Users: testRigor explicitly states unlimited users across all plans. Leapwork’s customizable approach likely allows for this as well, depending on the negotiated plan.
  • Tailored to Scale: Both services are designed to scale with the business, from small projects or teams to large enterprises.

Differences:

  • Transparency: testRigor provides clear-cut pricing for its lower tiers, making it straightforward for users to understand what they’re getting and at what cost. Leapwork, conversely, opts for a more opaque approach where pricing is concerned, requiring direct contact for a quote.
  • Trial Period: testRigor offers a 14-day trial with its Private plan, giving users a chance to test the service before committing financially. Leapwork does not mention a trial period, which may or may not be available upon request.
  • On-Premise Option: The Enterprise plan of testRigor potentially includes on-premise deployment, a feature that’s typically important for organizations with strict data control regulations. Leapwork does not specify this in the pricing description, but it might be available through the customized plan.
  • Support: testRigor’s Enterprise plan includes dedicated Slack support, which may appeal to teams looking for direct and immediate communication channels. Leapwork’s support structure is not detailed, but it could be part of the negotiated pricing plan.

Conclusion:
The main distinction lies in the transparency and immediacy of testRigor’s pricing structure compared to the bespoke pricing strategy of Leapwork. Users looking for a quick start with clear pricing might lean towards testRigor, while those seeking a tailored solution that precisely fits their organizational structure and needs might prefer Leapwork’s personalized approach. The choice between the two will largely depend on the user’s preference for upfront pricing versus a customized solution.

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