Anonymous UserQA Analyst II at Regal Entertainment Group
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"Supplying devices to a testing team of possibly close to one thousand testers and developers is a great undertaking but Sauce Labs has made this very easy and a welcomed solution."
"As stated earlier we use Sauce Labs for a combination of automated testing and manual testing. Therefore the most useful features are the ability to run the functional automated tests via a Sauce Labs tunnels which allows access to applications in our internal network. The second most useful feature is the manual side."
"The most valuable feature is the cross-browser feature, it has many android and iOS devices both simulators and real devices. It's easy to integrate. I also like video recording too."
"Sauce Lab analytics helped us to get detailed knowledge on test cases execution and logs."
"I have found the live test section with Sauce Labs to be extremely valuable. When you can't quite figure out why a test is failing, you can go to the live test results section within their tool and launch your test (specifying a given OS/browser, or device) manually and step through the test to see the issue more clearly, usually opening up the developer's tool console and watching the network calls and console (within Chrome) to usually find the underlying issue."
"The insights section provides a great overall state of the automation suite and can identify trends relatively quickly. If we see a dip in our passing rate over time, we can look at what changed when the test started failing to find the root cause rather than doing a quick fix to find that the test fails a short time later."
"Live device testing. As we all know, It's really hard and challenging to find/purchase many real devices to test because it will be costly and not all the team can be able to purchase all of the devices out there. We used to have a lot of real devices under our labs. However, it is really time-consuming to maintain those devices and make sure they are up to date with the testing requirements."
"So far, the stability has proven to be quite good."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"The solution offers excellent integration capabilities."
"It's a very simple solution to use."
"The solution scales well."
"It clearly makes it easy to test APIs based on the SOAP protocol. We are a logistics company, and we have lots of tracking calls coming in. We provide APIs for tracking services, and it makes sense for us to use SoapUI to test them thoroughly."
"The out-of-the-box support for the database is a valuable feature."
"If I had to speak of an area that could be improved it would probably have to be the speed of interaction with the devices. There is at times a considerable amount of lag while using some of the virtual and at times even physical device farm"
"We have found that during automated testing this can be very slow. This causes inconsistencies with the tests. It's very difficult to rely on a service when you can't be sure if a test will pass or fail the next time it runs. This means building in a lot of sync time into the tests which in turn slows them down. If this speed could be improved then the service would be much better."
"The only drawback is the speed, it will be good if we have a server in Asia too. It will be great if we can improve speed while initialization and execution."
"They should provide a JIRA integration plugin so that we can easily log issues."
"Overall, I think Sauce Labs provides us with a valuable tool and resource. As far as what could be improved, I would say the overall test execution time. Some of the calls take a bit longer than I expect, for example in web browser tests; while the execution time isn't obnoxious, it could be improved so that overall tests/test suites finish faster."
"The one issue I have is the 14-day trial that a new user gets for free. I understand the concept of the trial period; however, I think this could be revamped to a free 30-minute run time every few months or after a significant update once the trial period has ended."
"As a web product QA team, we sometimes need to spot check some new child site on multiple browsers and OS(es). It was a little time consuming for us since we need to click on each of the browser/OS combinations and start a new session to test. Every sprint, with new features and child pages being added, we mostly need to do the same steps over and over again."
"Another feature that could still be improved on is more error clarity. Sometimes when running automated scripts the test will fail on the device side instead of the script and errors only show a 500 try again message instead of a detailed script that could of a been a timeout error from the code."
"We tried automation but it's not easy to integrate with the synching and some of the mission tools that we use for automated testing of APIs."
"The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user."
"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."
"If the load and bare minimum could be defined, I would give this solution a higher rating."
"Occasionally, when you are saving, the solution can hang."
"There are no bugs or glitches, but a few features available only in the Pro version could be made available in the open-source version. Some of the features do not necessarily need to be only available to Pro users. The data generator would be really useful for the open-source version users."
"It is limited to scope and risk services only. It does have some support for JMS, but it is not out-of-the-box; you have to do some tweaks here and there."
"The cost is not that bad."
"I think the number of users is also limited, considering how much we pay."
"My understanding is that the pricing is okay, however, that's taken care of by our procurement team. It's around $5,000 for three years."
"The Pro version can be expensive for some companies. There are no costs in addition to the licensing fees."
"We have team members who are working in shifts, and it is not possible for us to utilize a single license on a single piece of hardware so that multiple team members can use it. We have to take out multiple licenses for each team member."
Sauce Labs provides the world's largest secure and highly scalable automation cloud for testing desktop, mobile web, native, and hybrid applications. Sauce Labs helps companies accelerate software development cycles, improve application quality, and deploy with confidence across 450+ browser/OS/device/platform combinations.
Sauce Labs is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 10 reviews while SoapUI Pro is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 7 reviews. Sauce Labs is rated 8.4, while SoapUI Pro is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Sauce Labs writes "Helps us in reducing the number of manual testing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SoapUI Pro writes "Has out-of-the-box database support and can be easily used by non-technical staff ". Sauce Labs is most compared with BrowserStack, Perfecto, CrossBrowserTesting, Tricentis Tosca and HeadSpin, whereas SoapUI Pro is most compared with ReadyAPI, Postman, Parasoft SOAtest, Apache JMeter and Worksoft Certify. See our Sauce Labs vs. SoapUI Pro report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional 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.