All its features are very good. I like the following the most:
- CI integration
- Cross browser testing
- Multiple test runs at one time
- Language support
All its features are very good. I like the following the most:
We now have faster and more furious testing with a better quality of testing.
Speed and connectivity need improvement.
I have used this solution for two years.
No issues.
Yes, it disconnects sometimes while the automation is running.
No issues.
Good.
Technical Support:Good.
No. I did not previously use a different solution.
The initial setup was straightforward.
It was implemented in-house.
Our ROI is good.
The pricing is okay. It is worth purchasing.
No.
It is a good tool with variety of functionality.
I like the parallel run feature the most. It is very useful to run on different simulators and emulators.
Testing is very fast with this tool. Also, running automation is a very easy task now.
The speed needs to increase. Something with real device also need to improve.
Two years.
No.
No.
No.
Good.
Technical Support:Good.
No, we didn't use a different solution previously.
The initial setup is straightforward.
In-house.
Good.
Worth the purchase.
No, we did not.
Use it and love it. It is worth purchasing and using.
The parallel run is awesome.
Can run more tests at one time.
A little bit more speed needed to improve it.
Two years.
No.
No.
No.
Good.
Technical Support:It's the best.
No, I didn't use a different solution.
Straightforward.
In-house.
Good.
No.
It's a great tool. Go ahead with it.
Test run on simulators and emulators.
No need to purchase more real devices.
Speed.
Three years.
No.
No.
No.
Good.
Technical Support:Good.
No.
Straightforward.
In-house.
Good.
Good.
No.
No.
Great user interface.
Works great.
Having video recording would be great.
12 months.
No.
No.
No.
Never used.
Technical Support:Never used.
No.
Not complex at all.
In-house.
It's awesome. Its multifold increased our test efficiency.
Not too expensive for the ROI.
No.
All features are excellent, especially the parallel runs.
Fast execution.
Nothing, all is good.
One year.
No.
No.
Sometimes.
Good.
Technical Support:Good.
No.
Straightforward.
In-house.
Good.
No.
It's good to use.
All features are valuable.
Testing is now easier and faster.
Stability needs improvement.
Two years.
No.
Yes, sometimes there were issues with the stability.
No issues with scalability.
An eight out of 10.
Technical Support:A nine out of 10.
Our previous solution had less features.
The initial setup was straightforward.
In-house.
A nine out of 10.
No.
Testing my app on cloud has really helped us with save time and resources to procure various hardware and software, and set those up. The convenience of getting the test done with one click on several browsers/platforms is the key feature we use all the time.
We are saving a ton of the required lead time before starting any tests. Before, we would plan months ahead on browsers/platforms to determine the needed support, and keep them ready as development happened. Now, we can be much more efficient. Our feature design to the delivery timeline is not tied down by our ability to test anymore.
Better and programmatic controls on request/response recordings and sharing with developers.
Slightly over a year.
No, it was smooth.
We very rarely have had any crashes, but otherwise it is stable as a rock.
No.
I have not personally needed it yet, but their documentation and examples are solid.
Technical Support:Not applicable.
Everything else was homegrown; nothing like this.
Not at all.
Ourselves.
Yet to be measured, but if i were to take a wild swing at it, it's more than 1000%.
Go ahead please. Try it at a smaller scale.
None that I am aware of.