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.
Read full review When we have a large organization and number of changes and deployments are more than we should go for Copado. As we know it is a paid managed package and the cost is high so for dealing with fewer deployments it is not preferable to buy. Copado is well suited for users who don't have much technical understanding. So those users can see the User interface select the changes that need to be deployed by selecting the metadata. From Git operation to deployment all is handled by Copado itself. Copado has reduced the efforts for creating the package.xml and direct deployments can be done within a few clicks. Another Major aspect is that it can be directly synced with Jira or Azzure board from where the user stories will be synced and actions can be performed accordingly. For small organization, Copado can be expensive and to set up and maintain we need a technical person to do so.
Read full review Pros Scriptless and hence coding is easy. Maintenance of the scripts are easy. Learning curve is small. Read full review Metadata Deployments Data Deployments Salesforce CPQ deployments that require a lot of various Data Transferring deployments between teams. Read full review Cons The tool is not developer friendly and hence adoption across developers is low. The tool does not have an admin console to manage the users centrally. Different types of licensing and it’s all user based and hence pricey. Read full review Back promotions are sometimes difficult and behave in a weird manner After the deployment to production next changes in the pull request shows all the changes from the previous release as well Cannot be used through mobile Read full review Alternatives Considered 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 the tool, and hence we did not pick it.
Read full review Flosum is a downgrade for sure and I do not recommend it. Gearset is an upgrade and my preferred solution. Gearset has simplified the deployment path and makes it very easy to move between Salesforce instances. If there are any difficulties with Gearset they also have the best customer support for any deployment tool I've tried. Overall I'd say Gearset is #1, Copado #2 and Flosum a distant #3.
Read full review Return on Investment Overall adoption of an automation tool went up. Migration of existing selenium scripts to ACCELQ was relatively easy and less effort. Lack of overall admin console and hence managing the agents across different execution is difficult. Integration between accelQ and any test management tool can be difficult and buggy in most cases, even though it can be coded. Read full review It has reduced the efforts to create package.xml manually and deploy the changes Another positive impact is that we can track the commits to which org they have reached in an organized way and we don't need to maintain them separately For setting Copado it take a lot of time and training is required for the complete setup which is time-consuming Read full review ScreenShots