The scalability is more than satisfactory. What I have today and within our small team, it is usable. I have no clue if the team would be much bigger if it is really fitting our needs. But for a small dynamic team composed of IT and business and for the users who need to do the user acceptance test, it is sufficient. I have no real knowledge if we would upscale it to a much more complex project if it would be okay. 

I am the only user. I use the tool once a month. I do testing parellely. I access the product only when I need documentation. I rate the tool’s scalability a five out of ten.

You can easily replicate and reuse what you have done before, which is good. We can manage thousands and thousands of tests. It is great in this way, so Panaya works well right now for us.

Our initial plan was to use Panaya to manage the test script, follow the progress of the test, and use Panaya Recorder to save some time. We also wanted to use Panaya for defect management, issue management, and issue follow-up. The cost of the license was a little expensive, and we didn't deploy Panaya to a large extent to many users. We limited Panaya to a group of 40 people, which created some constraints because some people don't have access to Panaya. They are only involved in a small way in the tests or in the defect resolution. Because of the number of licenses or cost constraints, we have some groups that are using Panaya, and there are some other groups that are not using Panaya. So, we now need to double-track everything. We have to manually replicate the status and progress in Panaya.

In terms of people responsible for the maintenance of this solution in our organization, we have three people so far. I am a test manager for a big SAP program. There is a project owner who is responsible for organized setup. We also have an administrator who is responsible for creating access in Panaya and giving authorizations.

The scalability is good and we had no issues with that.