You have developed a web interface based on Angular and you are searching for a tool for automating (besides unit tests)? And the following question arises: Where is the difference between QF‑Test and the free test framework Protractor?

Protractor is based on Selenium and is using a slightly different script syntax.
The comparison with QF-Test in the following table is equally for Selenium and Protractor.

Setup and programmingProtractor is clearly aimed at developers or testers with in-depth programming knowledge. Already for setting up the environment it is necessary to deal with a packet manager, Selenium Server, Webdriver library and frameworks like Jasmine, Mocha or Cucumber. The configuration and test creation is done on code level.This is different with QF-Test: even non-programmers can easily work with the tool. There is a huge difference already in setup and programming, because testers usually have no experience setting up development environments. Installation is uncomplicated and test creation is intuitively possible directly in the program.
Supported technologiesProtractor works only for Angular web applications.This is where QF-Test scores: Java, web, Windows, and combined/hybrid applications are no problem.
Target groupProtractor requires programming knowledge and is therefore primarily aimed at developers. Protractor does not have an intuitive design.The target audience of QF-Test are both the testers and the developers.
Capture and replayWith Protractor, the flow of a test has to be created manually and the selection of objects to be addressed is not trivial.
Both tools use similar functionalities, e.g. target ready DOM elements, offer the use of CSS selectors.
QF-Test also shines in recording and playback: Recording actions and checks as well as direct editing of the recorded steps are part of the basic functionality of QF-Test.
Object identificationIn object recognition, Protractor has major disadvantages compared to QF-Test: GUI objects must be managed at the code level and can only be managed centrally by consistently applying special programming patterns.QF-Test recognizes components by fixed assigned IDs of the GUI objects or a multi-level and adaptable recognition algorithm, which is tolerant against element changes in the hierarchy.
QF test offers in contrast to Protractor an abstraction of components, instead of API mapping these become with QF-Test over the resolver to tables, trees etc..
Test run analysis
Data driven testing
Protractor cannot do that.Through detailed logging QF-Test supports the test run analysis and minimizes the maintenance effort and through flexible reporting one keeps the overview. Data-driven testing can be easily realized through table definitions.
ReusabilityTo use Protractor tests again you need knowledge in object oriented programming.QF-Test offers simple concepts for modularization.
Extensive documentstion
Training and Consulting
Protractor does not offer this.Another plus point for QF-Test is the extensive documentation in German and English, the professional support as well as training and consulting directly from the manufacturer.
PriceFreeware, yet personnel costs for implementation and efficiency.Don't save at the wrong end: The price for a commercial tool like QF-Test is only a very small part of the project costs. The main part is the personnel costs, i.e. the effectiveness with which tests can be implemented and maintained plays THE decisive role. These are also incurred with freeware tools, possibly even higher since there are no guaranteed response times and upgrades.