It has been one of the most positive experiences with automation I have had in my QA career.

I like how flexible it is and the robustness of the reporting. We are primarily using it to run test cases that are data intensive and are tedious and time consuming run manually. We can get tests run in a few hours that would take weeks to run manually.

Its not exactly a con but there are so many features it is not easy to figure out without the training or SME help.

1. Easy to design scripts with selenium commands available in a select dropdown such as click, select and assert commands. Ability to have multiple locators for a single command in case we need to have for different locators for different browsers. 2. Cross browser testing is there which enables us to test our application on different browser versions. 3. Running tests in parallel on cloud which is big advantage to our framework as it reduces execution time and gives us the ability to provide application quality results fast enough. 4. Jira integration is a plus feature which helps linking jira issues with the runs and in turn gives us a consolidated report on what runs got affected by which tickets.

Ability to create object repository feature is not available which makes the maintenance of the script little tough in scenarios when there is change in locator for an element.

• Ability to record the web elements and re-execute. • Instant test validations post recording scenario by executing scripts. • Ability to edit scripts using element locator feature. • Ability to auto suggest various locators available for reaching the web element. • Rapid syntax reference for commands or instructions from knowledge base during scripting. • Ability to read parameterized test data from CSV and Excel. • Numerous scenarios creation by means of script re-usability feature. • Supporting various test environments with less script changes. • Cross browser testing support. • Simulating various devices for testing. • Screenshots, videos and test logs make it efficient to debug failed tests. • Auto re-executions with AI/ML for the failed scenarios. • Transaction details report provides the clear understanding of the test execution results. • Reliable automation outputs. • Significant extended support post the onboarding process.

• Should be proficient to execute multiple scenarios in a single run definition for auto re-execution of failed scenarios. • System aborts should be captured accordingly in reports. • Incapable to capture the videos and network logs in Selenoid executions. • Execution timings, even via the high-volume Selenoid server, is not as quick as expected. • Buggy updates at times. • Does not always capture the real-time screenshot at exact failed instruction. • Not as cooperative in PDF file validations with chrome browser. • Reports count discrepancies for test results. • While extended support is offered, 24X7 is not. • Email test result notifications should be triggered post AI/ML executions. • Support through Microsoft Teams or Slack will be an extra advantage.

1. eureQa's ability to support Functional Testing, Cross Browser/Device Testing, and Performance Testing. 2. eureQa's open API Framework to support custom client requirements 3. Easy to script, run, report, and maintain 4. An enterprise level security which allows us to test with confidence without worrying about cyber attacks and data breaches. 5. eureQa's ability to speed up test execution times with it's parallel execution framework

eureQa software still requires enhancements which can add value to it's ever growing abilities. Functions like bulk actions and folder tree structures are still missing. But, eureQa's customer focused approach is well defined and highly appreciable. Team at eureQa has worked with us to get constant feedback on product and formed business cases to enhance product which not only helps us but to other clients too. I am sure with time, we will be able to get all these amazing enhancements in upcoming versions of eureQa.

I thought it is easy during training, since I knew Selenium. It is still easy if I get more experience and knowledge in order to handle exceptions and how to use command effectively. I feel like Eureqa is great tool, since it offers to execute our tests in different device, and cross- browser testing

I really like the way how system creates test script by capturing the step by our manual test. We can not perform Database and APi yet, but it is wonderful to be able to perform all type of testing with one product. We also can execute our test in different device and cross browser testing. This is the feature I like the most. Tagging and local execution also one my favorite, I also like the way how reports reflect our test runs.

Trouble shooting and debugging is difficult. We should have got more information about how to handle frames, calendar, popup etc. in the training. When I check training document, I have seen that we only get initial training, there are more trainings for creating advance test scripts, database and API testing. I attend a booth camp and pay a lot of money to learn automation, 40 hours of class in a week and additional study on top of it for six months. I do not mind taking more training to learn automation, especially it is free. I wish we had more trainings to learn all of this. And lastly we could have better communication with EureQA team, since we have 12 hours different, I think it makes our communication harder.