Evaluation reports

Squish dropped out relatively early. From the user's point of view test cases, also in complex scenarios, could just be generated by QF-Test.

Micros Retail compares GUIdancer to QF-Test

Comparison matrix

Criteria GUIdancer QF-Test
AUT started as part of the testcase No Yes
Testcases can be versioned Yes No (but testcases are stored in XML => versioning by CVS possible)
Batch execution possible (needed for nightly build integration) Yes (but complex as project database needs to be available) Yes
Ant Targets available Yes (ANT integration with exec task possible) Yes (ANT integration with exec task possible)
<strong>Complexity</strong>    
Separation of logical and physical components Yes No
If-when-else-conditions No (can be reached by using event handlers) Yes
More than one AUT possible (SMS + POS) No (planned for Q1/2010) Yes
Database integration No (database scripts can be executed as external tasks) Yes
Support of Script languages No (Scripts can be executed as external tasks) Yes (Jython, Groovy)
Properties can be used to pass parameters into the testsuite No (Excel-Files can be used) Yes

Evaluation report: Squish vs. GUIdancer vs. QF-Test - June 2010, Sebastian Behrens, Micros Retail (former Torex), Berlin.

(Original German texts and citations are translated into English.)