testRigor vs Waldo

testRigor vs Waldo

1 February 2024 Stephan Petzl Leave a comment Tool comparisons

In the landscape of automated testing, testRigor and Waldo emerge as two robust solutions. testRigor, an AI-powered tool, allows tests to be written in plain English, supporting a range of platforms including web and mobile, and boasts features like SOC2 compliance and integration with device farms.


Conversely, Waldo, part of the Tricentis suite, offers a no-code approach specifically for mobile app testing, with an intuitive interface and computer vision capabilities. While both tools offer easy-to-learn, no-code solutions with free plans, testRigor provides a broader platform support and advanced reporting, while Waldo focuses on mobile with an emphasis on user interface testing.


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 Waldo

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


Comparison of testRigor and Waldo Pricing Models

testRigor Pricing Overview

testRigor offers a tiered pricing structure that caters to different user needs. Its Free plan targets open-source projects with unlimited users, cases, and suites but with public tests. The Private plan, starting at $900/month, offers private tests and additional features with the possibility of buying more parallelizations. The Enterprise plan is aimed at larger organizations and includes custom pricing, a dedicated manager, and potential on-premise deployment. All plans feature unlimited users and test cases.

Waldo Pricing Overview

Waldo provides tailored testing plans, beginning with a free manual testing option. The ‘Release’ plan adds fully automated end-to-end testing in a single concurrency environment. The ‘Develop’ plan allows for faster test speeds and multi-concurrency testing, with support for multiple languages and devices. Features such as Session Explorer, debugging replays, and CI/CD integration are standard across all plans. Advanced features like automated test version control and SCM integration are also available. Users can start for free or request a demo for a comprehensive view.

Comparing the Pricing Models

Common Points:

  • Free Options: Both testRigor and Waldo offer free plans, making them accessible for users with limited budgets or those who wish to try the services before committing financially.
  • Unlimited Users: Each service allows an unlimited number of users, ensuring scalability and collaboration among team members.
  • Testing Features: Both provide a range of testing features, though the specifics vary between the two products.

Differences:

  • Privacy of Tests: testRigor’s Free plan only offers public visibility of tests, while it’s not specified for Waldo’s free manual testing option.
  • Tiered Structure vs. Tailored Plans: testRigor uses a clear tiered pricing model with set features at each level, whereas Waldo suggests a more customized approach, tailoring plans to specific user needs.
  • Enterprise Customization: testRigor explicitly mentions a custom pricing option for their Enterprise plan, which includes potential on-premise deployment and a dedicated manager. Waldo does not specify custom enterprise solutions but offers a demo for users to explore potential.
  • Parallel Testing: testRigor allows the purchase of additional parallelizations to expedite test execution, while Waldo includes parallel runs and multi-concurrency testing in certain plans.
  • Integration and Support: Waldo highlights CI/CD integration and customer support across all plans, whereas testRigor specifies Slack support for the Enterprise plan.

In summary, testRigor and Waldo both offer scalable testing solutions with free entry points. testRigor’s pricing is more structured with defined tiers, while Waldo emphasizes customization and flexibility in their offerings. Users looking for a standardized package may lean towards testRigor, while those seeking tailored solutions might prefer Waldo’s approach. Both services cater to growing teams and organizations with the inclusion of unlimited users and a suite of features aimed at improving testing efficiency.

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