Comparison Protractor vs. QF-Test for Angular

You have developed a web interface based on Angular (AngularJS, Angular 2, Angular 4, Angular 5) 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?

QF-Test vs. Protractor
  • Protractor's target groups are definitely developers or testers with deep knowledge in programming. By setting up the environment they have to work with a package manager, Selenium server, WebDriver library and frameworks as Jasmine, Mocha or Cucumber. The configuration and test creation is on code level.
  • QF-Test's target groups are developers and especially testers, since no deep programming knowledge is required. Its installation is straightforward and test creation is intuitively possible within the program.
  • QF-Test's advantage is that the number of supported technologies is large: Java-, Web and combined/hybrid applications aren't any problem. Progractor's orientation is just on Angular web applications.
  • QF-Test is brilliant in capture/replay: The recording of actions and checks as well as the direct edition of recorded steps belong to the basic features of QF-Test. With Protractor the test procedure must by done manually and the selection of the addressing objects isn't trivial at all.
  • Both tools are using similar functionalities, they aim on e.g. DOM elements, offer the usage of CSS-selectors...
  • Regarding to object recognition Protector has bigger disadvantages in comparison to QF-Test: GUI objects must be managed on code level and can just be managed centrally by the consistent usage of special programming patterns. QF-Test recognizes components through fixed IDs of the GUI objects or a multi-level and customizable detection algorithm that is tolerant to element changes in the hierarchy.
  • QF-Test offers an abstraction of components unlike Protractor: Instead of API mapping resolvers transfer these components in tables, trees etc. in QF-Test.
  • QF-Test supports the test run analysis with detailled protocols and minimizes the maintenance effort. You stay on top of things due to flexible reporting. Data driven testing can be realized with the definition of tables.
  • To reuse Protractor's tests you need knowledge in object oriented programming. QF-Test offers simple concepts for modularization.
  • A further plus of QF-Test is its extensive documentation in English and German language, the professional support as well as training and consulting directly from the developers, which Protractor doesn't offer like this.
  • Don't make false economies: The price of a commercial tool as QF-Test is just a small part of all your project costs. The main expenses are staff costs, this means die efficiency of implementing and maintaning tests plays THE decisive role. These expenses also arise for freeware tools, maybe even higher since there are no guaranteed response times and upgrades.

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.

[Translate to English:] Protractor vs. QF-Test
[Translate to English:] Vergleichen Sie QF-Test und Protractor selbst (Ein Klick auf das Bild öffnet das PDF.).

Check it out for yourself: