QA Wolf vs. test IO

QA Wolf is well suited to meet with, discuss, and evaluate a customer's needs for automated web test coverage. They have experienced QA engineers on their team who relate well to what the customer is seeking with automation coverage from an external partner, and they ask the right questions to determine the best approach for producing and delivering that coverage. During the exploratory phase, we had very frequent and very helpful communications from our CSM and the engineers as we developed our plan. They then delivered on that plan, successfully. If you are seeking automated mobile coverage, QA Wolf is not your solution.

I think it's definitely more of an e2e testing tool versus just testing individual components.

Incentivized

• Creates new tests as requested fairly quickly.
• Listening and available at all times.
• Automated testing and the ease of creating tests on their platform with 0 coding experience.

• catch bugs
• test e2e flows
• accurately report bugs with screenshots and videos

Incentivized

• Our situation is somewhat unique such that we have internal QA members liaising with our QA Wolf partners. This has been ideal for communicating and effectively identifying test coverage needs. So, unfortunately for this question, we have not experienced any issues needing improvement in our relationship with QA Wolf.

• honestly, nothing comes to mind - I think it's a great tool

Incentivized

Very easy app to use!

- Easy to setup. - Easy to use and navigate around. - Saves on cost of having to hire and maintain a large QA team. - Saves on cost of having to maintain our own servers. - Less production issues leading to happy customers. - Happy customers leading to healthy growth and revenue for the business.

test IO is MUCH easier to set up test cases and because it uses actual humans, it's a better real life tool. Rainforest was too picky on the test cases and you had to be overly specific.

Incentivized

• While I am not privy to the actual financial numbers associated with our change, I can articulate what we executed. We shifted away from a third-party, off shore partnership who was supplementing our internal QA staff with contractors writing Cypress tests and the management of Cypress Cloud, to eliminating four off-shore positions and terminating our Cypress Cloud subscription in order to keep our internal staff members and partner with QA Wolf. This change has been fiscally positive for our overall business objectives.
• This change also eliminated a time zone delay in communication and oversight between our international personnel maintaining our automation suite and created a more timely update between our staff and our new partners, building confidence that our investment in automation coverage is being managed appropriately.

• Catching bugs before customers do
• Catching bugs during a release

Incentivized