QAComplete vs. Rapise

Very well suited to requirements management, test suite creation and defect management. Not suited to project/task management.

Incentivized

[It's] well suited when there is someone with some degree of programming comfort.

• Allows us to create individual tests then group them into comprehensive test plans.
• Allows me to specify custom fields that match our product features to categorize both tests and defects.
• Allows me to create a series of requirements then match tests against them for validation.

Incentivized

• Simple recording front-end and easily captures UI objects for later interaction
• Flexible programming interface provides a multitude of manners in which to interact with learned UI objects
• Javascript based IDE is easy to learn

• The user interface can be somewhat perplexing and difficult to navigate at times.
• Naming conventions aren't always succinct and additional training is needed by those who have more experience using the program.
• A modern refresh of the UI would help keep the product from looking dated.

Incentivized

• For tests that require specific approaches it is necessary to have advanced knowledge of programming in javascrip, which sometimes the QA team does not have experience
• Sometimes I have noticed that when using object dragging errors occur intermittently
• The integration with some tools (Dynamics) is only with the basic functions from my point of view

Incentivized

I gave QAComplete this rating because though I do feel that it is a powerful tool, it's definitely not designed for the everyday user. Obviously the target demographic is QA specialists who should be team members that are very technical and methodical in their approaches. However, for the rest of the team, it can often time prove difficult to navigate. Also, the UI is in need of a serious refresh.

Incentivized

I have not had to work with their customer service directly yet. Our client has been utilizing this tool for years, so I would assume that the support they have received would be good enough to keep them wanting to continue to use the product.

Incentivized

We had used FogBugz and Freshdesk for quite some time. I hadn't been exposed to QAComplete until recently during a project with one of our clients, but we are already starting to see the superior benefits of this product. Once you wrap your head around the interface and navigate to the bug reports, it becomes a very powerful tool.

Incentivized

The main reason for choosing Rapise was that the other two options that we had tried at that time only served us for web applications and with Rapise we have greater versatility without changing the solution. In addition to the compatibility with other libraries that are familiar to us and easy application by our team

Incentivized

• From our side, it's been very easy to pick up on bugs reported by our clients. It's a great ROI for the cost as they are fairly minimal in comparison to other QA software.
• I think a negative impact can be the administration of QA items. It definitely feels a bit bogged down.
• My last negative would be that I don't believe it syncs in any way with the Atlassian software suite. I could be wrong on this but manual entry from system to system can be daunting at times.

Incentivized

• The primary objective of the institution is a service to the public, so everything that improves response times to the public helps us to achieve it.
• As a department in charge of the development of systems and applications, our objective is fulfilled by delivering quality products and tools such as Rapise help us greatly
• The return on investment can be more than justified by fulfilling the primary objectives

Incentivized