1 February 2024 Leave a comment Tool comparisons
In the ever-evolving landscape of test automation tools, testRigor and Accelq stand out with their AI-powered, no-code solutions, simplifying the creation and execution of automated tests. testRigor offers a unique approach with tests written in plain English, ideal for teams with limited technical expertise, and it integrates seamlessly with device farms.
On the other hand, Accelq delivers a unified platform that streamlines end-to-end business assurance across various applications. While both tools facilitate efficient testing on web, mobile, and API platforms, they differ in features like test scheduling and free plan availability, which may sway users depending on their specific 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 testRigor and Accelq
| Feature | testRigor | Accelq |
|---|---|---|
| Free Plan | ✔ | – |
| On Premise | ✔ | ✔ |
| Device Farm | ✔ | ✔ |
| Scheduler | ✔ | N/A |
| Generates Reports | ✔ | ✔ |
| Uses Computer Vision | N/A | – |
| No Code | ✔ | ✔ |
| Uses Ai | ✔ | ✔ |
| Platforms | web,Android,iOS | web,Android,iOS |
| Ease Of Use | very easy to learn | very easy to learn |
| Is Open Source | – | – |
| Support Included | ✔ | ✔ |
| Review Pros |
1. Allows writing and generating test scripts using plain English statements. 2. Offers integration with various tools such as JIRA and TestRail. 3. Capable of running tests on multiple browsers and devices simultaneously. 4. Features automatic test script generation, saving time and effort. 5. Provides efficient customer support, ensuring ease of use and implementation. 6. Eliminates the need for learning different programming languages or testing frameworks. 7. Enables the entire team to write end-to-end UI tests quickly without programming knowledge. 8. Generates human-readable test scripts that are easily understandable by anyone. 9. Automates test cases in a very short span of time. 10. Serves as a scalable solution for building a software testing process in non-software companies. | 1. Efficiency and Speed: ACCELQ offers a streamlined testing process that enhances overall efficiency and speed. 2. Self-Healing Capabilities: The tool has self-healing features that help maintain test accuracy over time. 3. Improved Test Coverage: Users report that ACCELQ helps in achieving more comprehensive test coverage. 4. Object Repository: A centralized object repository aids in better test management and reusability. 5. Defined Framework: ACCELQ comes with a predefined framework that reduces setup time and effort. 6. Logging Features: Detailed logging capabilities are available for better tracking and debugging of tests. 7. Defined Methods: The tool provides predefined methods that can be used to streamline test creation. 8. Salesforce Automation: It is particularly strong in automating tests for Salesforce applications. 9. Easy Maintenance: Maintenance of tests is easier due to the tool’s design and features. 10. Accelerated Development: Advanced AI capabilities in ACCELQ support faster development of test cases. |
| Review Cons |
1. The tool has been reported to crash occasionally, leading to more test case failures. 2. The cost of server resources may be a concern for some users. 3. Lacks educational materials to help improve QA efficiency for companies with less experience. 4. Some users have experienced issues with server responsiveness. 5. Initial challenges may be faced by companies with a limited QA team and lack of software testing knowledge. | 1. Java Integration: The need for an in-built editor for Java integrations to custom methods is an area for improvement. 2. Desktop UI Issues: Some users encounter issues with the Desktop UI, although alternatives like CLI are available. 3. Grid Filters: There is a need for enhancements in Grid Filters to support custom and diverse filter items. 4. Data Warehouse Integration: For those dealing with heterogeneous data sources, there may be challenges without a centralized data warehouse. 5. ETL Testing Limitations: While ACCELQ simplifies ETL testing, there may be complexities when dealing with varied data transformations and compliance standards. 6. Learning Curve: New users might experience a learning curve due to the advanced features and AI capabilities. 7. Cost: The pricing model may be a consideration for smaller teams or individual users. 8. Limited Language Support: Users who prefer programming languages other than Java may find limited support. 9. Customization Limits: Some users may require more customization options than what is currently available. 10. Documentation and Support: While not always the case, some users might seek more comprehensive documentation and support for complex scenarios. |
Pricing Models of testRigor and ACCELQ
testRigor Pricing Overview
testRigor provides a tiered pricing structure aimed at different scales of software testing needs. The Free plan is suitable for open-source projects and includes unlimited users, cases, and suites, albeit with public visibility. The Private plan, starting at $900 per month, offers private tests and the ability to purchase additional parallelizations. The Enterprise plan is tailored for larger organizations, offering custom pricing, a dedicated manager, Slack support, and the option for on-premise deployment.
ACCELQ Pricing Overview
ACCELQ’s pricing model is designed to accommodate a variety of testing scenarios, including web, mobile, API, and manual testing. It features a trial period and the flexibility of cloud or on-premise deployment. The Enterprise Plan is ideal for large businesses, offering features such as single sign-on and API virtualization, with pricing available upon request. Additionally, ACCELQ provides individual and team plans for manual testing, including a free-for-life option.
Comparison of Pricing Models
Common Points:
- Tiered Pricing: Both testRigor and ACCELQ offer tiered pricing structures, providing options that scale with user needs.
- Enterprise Options: Each has an Enterprise plan that caters to larger organizations with custom pricing and advanced features.
- Trial Periods: Both products offer trial periods to test their services before committing to a purchase.
- Unlimited Users: Each service provides plans with unlimited users, ensuring scalability for growing teams.
- Support Features: Dedicated support and operational features are included in the higher-tier plans for both products.
Key Differences:
- Pricing Transparency: testRigor openly states its starting price for the Private plan, while ACCELQ requires direct contact for pricing details on its Enterprise Plan.
- Free Plan Accessibility: testRigor’s Free plan is geared towards open-source projects with public test visibility, whereas ACCELQ’s free-for-life option is available for manual testing needs.
- Customization and Additional Features: testRigor offers additional parallelizations for quicker execution as a purchasable option, whereas ACCELQ includes features like no-code logic editors, self-healing capabilities, and cross-browser testing within its plans.
- Deployment Options: ACCELQ explicitly mentions the flexibility of both cloud and on-premise deployment across its range of plans, while testRigor highlights on-premise deployment as a feature of its Enterprise plan.
- Support and Operations: ACCELQ standardizes support and operations features across all plans, including backup and recovery, while testRigor reserves Slack support and a dedicated manager for its Enterprise customers.
In summary, while both testRigor and ACCELQ provide tiered pricing models with options for different organization sizes, the key differences lie in their approach to pricing transparency, the accessibility of their free plans, and the additional features and support options included at various pricing levels. Readers should consider these factors in relation to their specific testing needs when choosing between the two products.
