ACCELQ vs. TestComplete

TestComplete

Overview
Product	Rating	Most Used By	Product Summary	Starting Price
ACCELQ	Score 7.3 out of 10	N/A	ACCELQ is an agile quality management platform that helps users achieve continuous delivery for web, mobile, manual testing, and APIs. It can be used to write and manage manual test cases for the functionality that may be too fluid for automation.	N/A
TestComplete	Score 8.0 out of 10	N/A	TestComplete is a GUI test automation tool that enables users of all skill levels to test the UI of every desktop, web, and mobile application. TestComplete is best suited for testers, automation engineers, and QA teams in any industry.	$2,256 per license

Pricing

ACCELQ

TestComplete

Editions & Modules

No answers on this topic

Node-Locked Base: 2,256
per license
Node-Locked Pro: 3,950
per license
Float - Base: 5,077
per license
Float - Pro: 7,901
per license

Offerings

Pricing Offerings
ACCELQ	TestComplete
Free Trial
No	Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No	No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No	No

Entry-level Setup Fee

No setup fee

Additional Details

—

Pay for only the modules needed. TestComplete Pro includes all three modules: desktop, web, and mobile, at a bundled price point, as well as access to the parallel testing engine, TestExecute. TestComplete has additional add-ons, including TestExecute and the Intelligent Quality Add-On.

More Pricing Information

Community Pulse
	ACCELQ	TestComplete
Considered Both Products	ACCELQ Verified User Anonymous Chose ACCELQ When we implemented ACCELQ, we conducted POCs with many similar solutions. Among the tools we pursued at that time, accelQ stood out against Tricentis Tosca and QMetry automation studio. However, subject 7 did better. However, they were still in the nascent stages of building … Incentivized Helpful? KK Kuman Kothiya Test Lead Chose ACCELQ API integration Autopilot AI interactions Logic analyzer features Incentivized Helpful?	TestComplete Verified User Anonymous Chose TestComplete SonarQube and Visual Studio Test Professional Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose TestComplete We still use both products in our company, since Postman is mainly used for backend automation and TestComplete for frontend automation. The difference is that via Postman you can easily write tests that send different requests to your server, get the response, and compare them … Incentivized Helpful? JK Jinuraj Kottackel Senior Test Enginner Chose TestComplete I have evaluated Tricentis Tosca and another product along with TestComplete. TestComplete is much better [and more] user friendly. Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose TestComplete TestComplete stacks up against them in terms of GUI and seamless performance. It records each and every step and action been performed in the application and produces a detailed report in a well-structured manner. It can connect and access seamlessly among various databases … Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose TestComplete For their special field (API & web testing) I choose those products over TestComplete Incentivized Helpful? AP Atul Patil Senior Test Engineer Chose TestComplete Below are the points why we selected TestComplete 1. Better UI. 2. Plenty of validation cases supports i.e. checkpoints. 3. Multiple scripting languages. 4. Better accuracy and robustness. 5. Good documentation and Video tutorials. 6. Great support team. Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose TestComplete Based on my evaluation regards to the product cost, useability, the TestComplete came first on my selections. Incentivized Helpful? Michal Ignaczak Senior Test Software Engineer Chose TestComplete TestStand is a much more complex tool than TestComplete and it's for a little bit different solutions I think. For desktop apps I would use the TestComplete, For Mobile / Web -> Python + Behave + Pytest selenium - TestComplete is much overcomplicated and slow! For … Incentivized Helpful? MM Mohammed Mitha CTO (Chief Technical Officer) Chose TestComplete The major advantage over other tools is the ease of use. A chimp will be able to figure out TestComplete whereas the others require extensive coding knowledge Incentivized Helpful? FO Femi Oyewole Team Lead Chose TestComplete I know from using other tools in the past years that TestComplete could be more cost-effective, yet still get the job done. Incentivized Helpful? AM Axel Madode QA Senior Analyst Chose TestComplete TestComplete is more complete than Cypress.io because Cypress.io is only used to complete end-to-end testing for web apps. These two tools are user friendly and easy to use. For the needs of our company, we have chosen TestComplete for the variety of testing applications. Incentivized Helpful? AE alexandre elatmani Manager QA service Chose TestComplete TestComplete was effective and cheaper than quick test Pro Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose TestComplete TestComplete is a robust test automation tool and not for someone who expects to just record and playback. This can be done with [TestComplete], but the strength of the tool is the ability to code complex actions and capturing of objects. The reporting of results is also … Incentivized Helpful? DG Dale Ganus Associate Managing Director Chose TestComplete It has been almost 5 years since we researched products, but TestComplete gave us the best overall advantage to achieve our goals. So, that is why we chose it. Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose TestComplete It's been a long time so it may not be a fair assessment, but I don't recall IBM's product being as easy to use or have as many features. Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose TestComplete We used before the Coded UI Tests which are in Visual Studio / Azure DevOps, and the tests were impossible to maintain and very very flaky. Then in 2015, we selected TestComplete, as it was clearly the tool with the most feature for desktop UI testing. Selenium was … Incentivized Helpful? PP Paul Porkhovnik QA Engneer Chose TestComplete We evaluate several different products, but TestComplete fits the best for our Windows base application. Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose TestComplete We are using Katalon for web-based applications, mainly because our QA engineers have a strong experience with it. But it does not allow precise item identification in Delphi-based applications and that was a show stopper for us. Having received recommendations for … Incentivized Helpful? AK Aravinda Kodihalli Seenaiah Project Lead Chose TestComplete [...] Incentivized Helpful? MK Mohammad Khiabani Senior Quality Assurance Engineer Chose TestComplete Very close evaluations on all tools Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose TestComplete TestComplete was selected after trying multiple product offerings. Initially these product offerings were installed with trail keys, and various factors were weighted and sized based on complexity to install, and ease of use. TestComplete scored higher than any other product … Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose TestComplete TestComplete gives the best option of record and playback. Also, it does not have any problem with object recognition just like Selenium. Selenium needs more manual efforts in selecting the object properties and utilizing them. Also, Selenium needs a good command of one coding … Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose TestComplete TestComplete stacks up because its UI is easier to use than that of Ranorex Studio. Incentivized Helpful? Ben Fishel-Brown Test Automation & Security Team Lead Chose TestComplete We aren't 100% sure that we will stick with TestComplete for our web-based UI testing for the long haul because Selenium is a bit lighter on the overhead front, but we definitely really like it for testing our standalone applications and utilities. As far as a complete testing … Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose TestComplete We use TestExecute together with TestComplete. The ease of use is one of the reasons we have stuck with it for years now. Developers are satisfied due to the time saved with this tool. If you are still hesitating—don’t. We try to find the replacement, but so far can’t because … Incentivized Helpful?

Best Alternatives
	ACCELQ	TestComplete
Small Businesses	BrowserStack Score 8.6 out of 10	BrowserStack Score 8.6 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies	ReadyAPI Score 7.0 out of 10	ReadyAPI Score 7.0 out of 10
Enterprises	ignio AIOps Score 8.1 out of 10	SoapUI Open Source Score 8.6 out of 10
All Alternatives	View all alternatives	View all alternatives

User Ratings
	ACCELQ	TestComplete
Likelihood to Recommend	7.0 (0 ratings)	7.0 (0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew	- (0 ratings)	8.1 (0 ratings)
Usability	- (0 ratings)	7.8 (0 ratings)
Support Rating	- (0 ratings)	6.6 (0 ratings)
Implementation Rating	- (0 ratings)	6.7 (0 ratings)

User Testimonials
	ACCELQ	TestComplete
Likelihood to Recommend	ACCELQ can support multiple technologies such as web, mobile, API, and mainframe. It’s also suited for SAAS solutions such as Salesforce and addresses challenges such as dynamic HTML. It’s easy to set up, and onboarding is easy, and overall lead time is comparatively less. The overall execution results are captured with screenshots, and it’s easy to debug errors. It has integrations with leading cloud-based desktop and mobile farm services such as Saucelabs, browser stack, etc.; ACCELQ is not developer friendly, and hence the overall adoption for a continuous integration scenario is very limited. If you are using a different test management solution, the integration between accelQ and that tool needs ti to be built and hence requires additional development effort, and it’s buggy too. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review	Best suited to smaller unit test or tests broken up, couple of forms at a time Not suited - larger regressions test involving multiple systems. - my main regression involving payments has been unsuccessful for the last 3 years despite all working fine separately and while being watched Verified User Anonymous Read full review
Pros	Scriptless and hence coding is easy. Maintenance of the scripts are easy. Learning curve is small. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review	TestComplete is great for working with our non-web applications. TestComplete allows us to interface with our web application in a robust way. Despite the age of our architecture, TestComplete handles the old stuff that's been around a while as well as the newer technology when we are able to implement it. Incentivized Ben Fishel-Brown Test Automation & Security Team Lead Read full review
Cons	Visual regression features Test generation from UI and UX platforms like Figma Manual test tools can be more integrated with AutoPilot Incentivized Kuman Kothiya Test Lead Read full review	Would love to see TC be a plugin for Visual Studio. Instead of VBScript or JavaScript, to use C# or VB.NET Easier to set up with iOS. Android is not bad but iOS seems slow and confusing to get up and running Built-in PDF reading support, built in Excel API Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review
Likelihood to Renew	No answers on this topic	We have bigger test automation pack using test complete at the same time we also think this is not good performing tool for large number of test automation scripts. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review
Usability	Features like low code, API automation, auto pilot and free account creations, case studies are better suited for my business into IOT space, some of the enterprise automation features are truly game changer in productivity for my team. Database migration was supported seamlessly while opted for ACCELQ solutions. Incentivized Kuman Kothiya Test Lead Read full review	It is usable when you become accustomed to its quirks. Not using it for two months and then you need to re-learn the quirks for some features (but some quirks are so awful that they will never fade from your memory). So, when using it regularly, it is possible to be quite productive, if no big correction in name mapping is needed. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review
Support Rating	No answers on this topic	Some bugs were quickly resolved, but most UX quirks of the tool are just marked "as designed". No follow up for enhancement request. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review
Implementation Rating	No answers on this topic	If you develop a mobile application and your testing process goes in cloud, probably you will face a problem - how to implement a stable connection between your mobile devices and testing servers Incentivized Yury Vakhatov Test Automation Engineer Read full review
Alternatives Considered	API integration Autopilot AI interactions Logic analyzer features PDF and email automation features Incentivized Kuman Kothiya Test Lead Read full review	TestComplete stacks up against them in terms of GUI and seamless performance. It records each and every step and action been performed in the application and produces a detailed report in a well-structured manner. It can connect and access seamlessly among various databases directly to speed up the testing process. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review
Return on Investment	50% improvement in test efficiency of a team member 40% overall cost cutting for the project 40% team members are being AI focused tool users Incentivized Kuman Kothiya Test Lead Read full review	Improved product quality overall, since automating tedious tests frees up time and is not prone to fatigue When getting started - depending on the complexity of the software/UI tested - it can be a time sink before it brings actual value, and changes to the structure of the UI need to be communicated early, so the changes can be implemented on time to run the automation Once set up, the maintenance cost is low, and the automation frees up a lot of resources especially in an agile environment where there are a lot of releases that would need regression tests. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review
ScreenShots