Logo QF-Test

QF-Test vs. GUIdancer vs. Squish

 

Free Trial  Download  Buy

From the user's point of view test cases, also in complex scenarios, could just be generated by QF-Test

Sebatian Behrens, Micros Retail (former Torex), Berlin, Germany

Evaluation of Squish, GUIdancer and QF-Test

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

CriteriaGUIdancerQF-Test
AUT started as part of the testcaseNoYes
Testcases can be versioned YesNo (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 availableYes (ANT integration with exec task possible)Yes (ANT integration with exec task possible)
Complexity
Separation of logical and physical componentsYesNo
If-when-else-conditionsNo (can be reached by using event handlers)Yes
More than one AUT possible (SMS + POS)No (planned for Q1/2010)Yes
Database integrationNo (database scripts can be executed as external tasks)Yes
Support of Script languagesNo (Scripts can be executed as external tasks)Yes (Jython, Groovy)
Properties can be used to pass parameters into the testsuiteNo (Excel-Files can be used)Yes

Evaluation: Squish vs. GUIdancer vs. QF-Test:  From the user's point of view test cases, also in complex scenarios, could just be generated by QF-Test, Squish dropped out relatively fast - Sebastian Behrens, Micros Retail (former Torex), Berlin.

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

Videos Downloads Documentation Buy Free Trial