We performed a comparison between AWS Device Farm and Perfecto based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Mobile App Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I rate the stability an eight out of ten."
"What I like best about AWS Device Farm is that it offers actual physical devices that let you do more accurate testing because physical devices depict the live testing scenarios much better as opposed to emulated devices. AWS Device Farm is a pretty nice solution. Because it's an AWS service, you can use the CLI to tie in several steps that can create the pipeline, and run it efficiently. AWS Device Farm also gives you monitoring ability, observability, logging, etc., so I'm pretty satisfied with the solution."
"Mobile testing is the most valuable feature as it has reduced dependency on physical devices. We are located offshore and we don't have the physical devices, and shipping physical devices after every new release would be a difficult task. But with Perfecto, it is easy."
"We are able to offer a quality product that has been tested fully, which improves our customer satisfaction. That is a good thing. It has also reduced our IT infrastructure cost. We don't have to spend a lot on setting up infrastructure, which becomes redundant or obsolete very soon. It helps in offsetting that cost."
"The automation piece is the most valuable feature. Every time we had a new version of either OS or an application, we found that being able to automate the testing across different devices is very valuable."
"In terms of cross-platform testing, they offer all of it, every device available in the market. It covers real scenarios that mimic production so that we don't miss out on any devices that our clients might be using to run the applications we develop. It's been great and very helpful."
"There are a whole bunch of things that I like about the solution, but I really love the interaction it has with mobile devices, the testing capabilities, as well as reporting capabilities that we get from the application. The reports are very detailed."
"Perfecto has affected our software quality in a good way. It has allowed us to execute on-demand and on-choice. We also track the number of issues that we find in the product. Every single day, we tag the issues that we found. For example, if something was found by automation, that means it was found by a Perfecto execution. Over time, we realized the real value in tracking those numbers. We can see now that we have clearly been finding issues earlier. It has allowed us to catch our defects earlier, thus improving the quality of our applications."
"We're working in Agile and we need results ASAP. The fact that the lab provides same-day access to new devices is extremely important to us."
"The automated test reporting functionality is the most valuable feature. We use the CI Dashboard. It's very important as it is the main reporting tool for our automated tests."
"An area for improvement in AWS Device Farm is that it lacks a lot of features that would tie it in with other AWS services. The solution doesn't have great connectivity with other services offered by AWS, for example, AWS Secrets Manager. This should be improved because a lot of times, that missing functionality hampers the quality and engineering standards in terms of deploying the full AWS suite of services. What I'd like to see in the next version of AWS Device Farm is for it to link better, or have some type of enrollment that would tie it in with other AWS services, such as EventBridge, Lambda, Secrets Manager, and any other new service from AWS."
"It is slow. It is super slow. Performance is an area that can be improved."
"Previously, we used the cradle. Every time the mobile was blocking it, we would have to ask Perfecto to provide another one. That took a lot of time away from us."
"It is slow compared to physical device testing. The interactive speed could be improved."
"One improvement would be speed of execution. If it is an iOS native app, we have noticed that the speed is a bit slower. Perfecto might need to make some improvements in this area."
"We have had some issues with performance, which is something that should be improved."
"We don't use Perforce's BlazeMeter with Perfecto. From my perspective, it's not really relevant."
"The monitoring features, in particular network traffic monitoring, could be improved."
"If we could run an accessibility test in Perfecto against builds, it would help us a lot. Currently, that's a very manual process for us. We haven't found a tool that can do accessibility scans for iOS and doesn't depend on engineering effort. Having a feature related to that would be really awesome for us."
"I'm hoping they can support on-premises instances. We have been working on a JIRA integration with Perfecto—and I'm extremely impressed that they have that—but at this time they're not supporting onsite JIRA instances, which is what we have."
AWS Device Farm is ranked 5th in Mobile App Testing Tools with 2 reviews while Perfecto is ranked 3rd in Mobile App Testing Tools with 23 reviews. AWS Device Farm is rated 6.6, while Perfecto is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of AWS Device Farm writes " A stable solution used for malware testing and APM that needs to improve its performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Perfecto writes "Its reporting allows us to have a clear view regarding what tests have been executed". AWS Device Farm is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Kobiton Mobile Device Testing, pCloudy, OpenText UFT Digital Lab and HeadSpin, whereas Perfecto is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Appium, Katalon Studio and HeadSpin. See our AWS Device Farm vs. Perfecto report.
See our list of best Mobile App Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Mobile App Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
