Leapwork vs Waldo

Leapwork vs Waldo

5 February 2024 Stephan Petzl Leave a comment Tool comparisons

In the ever-evolving landscape of test automation, Leapwork and Waldo emerge as leading platforms designed to streamline testing processes. Leapwork is a no-code, AI-enhanced automation platform offering extensive support for web and mobile applications, renowned for its ease of use and robust reporting capabilities.


On the flip side, Waldo, part of the Tricentis suite, provides a no-code solution with a unique focus on mobile app testing, leveraging computer vision and offering a free plan. Our comparison will dissect their offerings, helping you discern which platform aligns best with 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 Waldo

FeatureLeapworkWaldo
Free Plan
On Premise
Device Farm
Scheduler
No Code
Uses Ai
Generates Reports
Uses Computer Vision
Platformsweb,Android,iOSAndroid,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.
– Tests from a real user’s perspective, making it less sensitive to UI changes.
– Finds elements even if they change position, ID, or size, leading to more successful test completions.
– Assertion feature alerts when changes are detected that may need review.
– Includes a flakiness score to identify and improve flaky tests.
– Advanced features like deep linking and branch testing enhance testing capabilities.
– Contributes to faster and more efficient development cycles by catching bugs earlier.
– Allows for confidence in releasing new updates without full manual regression.
– Scalable and reliable technology that mimics real user interactions.
– Excellent customer support with proactive outreach and dedicated communication channels.
– Reduces manual testing time significantly, allowing for faster feedback loops and quicker bug fixes.
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.
– Continuous evolution of the product can require frequent adaptation of testing methods.
– Some users experience slower execution speed of test suites.
– Edge cases may be challenging to automate with the current toolset.
– No-code approach may lead to updating tests only after new code breaks them.
– Learning curve associated with adopting new developer tools like Waldo.
– Can’t automate 100% of tests, as certain scenarios may still require manual attention.
– End-to-end tests, particularly on mobile, can be inherently slow.
– Dependency on the tool’s updates and improvements for better performance.
– Some initial setup and familiarization with the technology are necessary.
– May not be as intuitive for teams accustomed to traditional code-first testing approaches.


Pricing Model Comparison: Leapwork vs. Waldo

Leapwork Pricing Overview

Leapwork Test Automation offers a customizable pricing model that is designed to cater to the specific needs of different business sizes and diverse team requirements. The company does not have a set pricing structure available publicly; instead, they encourage potential customers to contact them directly. This approach allows Leapwork to tailor their pricing plans to the individual needs of each organization, ensuring that clients pay for features and services that are relevant to their business goals and team dynamics.

Waldo Pricing Overview

Waldo provides a range of testing plans that cater to different user needs, beginning with a complimentary manual testing option. As users scale up, Waldo provides the ‘Release’ plan, which offers automated end-to-end testing with single concurrency, and the ‘Develop’ plan, which includes multi-concurrency testing and additional support for various languages and devices. All plans come equipped with a host of features like Session Explorer, debugging replays, and CI/CD integration. For more advanced needs, features such as automated test version control and SCM integration are available. Users can start with a free plan or book a demo to explore the full capabilities of Waldo’s automated testing solutions.

Comparison of Pricing Models

Common Points:

  • Tailored Solutions: Both Leapwork and Waldo emphasize the importance of providing tailored solutions to meet the specific needs of their customers.
  • Scalability: Each company offers pricing models that can scale with the growth of a business, accommodating varying levels of testing requirements.
  • Feature-Rich: Both products come with a suite of features designed to support the testing process, including integrations and support options.

Key Differences:

  • Transparency: Waldo offers more transparency in its pricing structure, with specific plans outlined for potential customers, whereas Leapwork requires direct contact for a personalized quote.
  • Entry Point: Waldo provides a free manual testing option, making it accessible for users to start without any financial commitment. Leapwork does not publicly advertise a free or trial option.
  • Plan Structure: Waldo’s pricing plans are structured around the level of automation and concurrency needed, with clear distinctions between the ‘Release’ and ‘Develop’ plans. Leapwork’s plan structure is not publicly detailed and is presumably more flexible given their personalized quote approach.
  • Advanced Features: Waldo explicitly lists advanced features like automated test version control and SCM integration, which are included to enhance testing efficiency. Leapwork’s approach to advanced features is less clear without direct engagement.

Conclusion

While both Leapwork and Waldo offer solution-oriented pricing models targeting different business needs, Waldo provides more upfront information regarding their plans and features, along with a free starting option. Leapwork, on the other hand, opts for a more bespoke pricing strategy, which could be beneficial for organizations seeking a highly customized testing automation solution. Potential users should consider the level of pricing transparency, the importance of a free entry point, and the granularity of the plan structure when deciding between these two products.

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