QF-Test  –  The GUI Test Tool for Java and Web

Evalimonials

More customer recommendations can be found on our Testimonials page. Also available are evaluation reports and case studies on QF-Test. A requirements checklist helps with own assessments.

Pece Stanoev, Java developer, Skopje, Macedonia:

From my experience with QF-Test I find it to be very useful tool for automatic testing. Here are the pros from my perspective:

	Generally easy to use, small learning curve for novice users
	Expert functions
	Great event recorder
	The tree view for the test suite, tests and all commands and checks is AMAZING (give my regards to the developer)
	Use of variables in anything
	The SUT Scripts
	Overall pretty stable tool
	Great report generation
	GREAT debugger and run log

I enjoined the use of QFS pretty much and I can say it is the best tool for automatic testing that I've tried.

Thanks for this great product, Kind regards, Pece

Leonard Shi, Tester, DRS Signal Solutions, Columbia, USA:

I evaluated Squish other than QF-Test. What make us choose QF-Test was it's excellent customer support and it uses non-proprietary scripting language.

→ Klaus Berg, Senior Engineer, Siemens Corporate Technology, Munich, Germany:

For my evaluation criteria as well as dedicated test scenarios for the real system under test I have to say that QF-Test succeeded in fulfilling all my requirements with a score of more than 90%. That result placed QF-Test above all other evaluated commercial and open source tools -- at least for my specific requirements and target. However, I think you will hardly find another Java Swing GUI test tool that gives you a better value for your money. (PDF Version with more details)

Evgeny Baskakov, Staff Engineer, Excelsior LLC, Novosibirsk, Russia:

When selecting a GUI testing system, we had several crucial requirements:

	The most important one was the ease-of-use. QF-Test is definitely the winner among 15+ GUI testing tools we thoroughly evaluated.
	As we needed to test GUI applications running on our own JVM (Excelsior JET), we needed a testing tool implemented to the Java SE specification and cooperating flawlessly with any compliant JVM. To our pleasure, QF-Test works just fine with Excelsior JET, even though the tested Java applications are compiled into native code Windows/Linux executables.
	The ability to generate customizable reports with embedded screenshots was also a must requirement that QF-Test met.
	And last but not least, one of the factors that impacted our purchase decision was the excellent support service provided by QFS.

Tore Felix Munck, Lead Quality Assurance Specialist, SPT Group AS, Kjeller, Norway:

Question 1: Have you evaluated other tools as well?

Yes, Rational Robot from IBM

Question 2: Which criteria were crucial when deciding in favor of QF-Test?

	QF-Test is much more flexible and easy to use than Rational Robot
	The JAVA component recognition works better in QF-Test than RR for our application
	Cross-platform support (MS/Linux)

Philippe Heredia, Infiniscale Test Manager, Montbonnot Saint Martin, France:

I have evaluated other tools before choosing QF-Test, the most important thing, for me, is that QF-Test has an easy to launch process under test method (just use the normal way to launch the process) and it's working with encrypted classes. The other tools I have tested are not so easy to use.

QF-Test also has a batch mode, and I am interested in, but I have not tested the batch for now... One other reason is that I have worked with QF-Test version 1.0, so I know QFS a little and the tool too...

Antti Sinisalo, Project Manager, Oikeat Oliot Oy, Helsinki, Finnland:

I started the evaluation with four different tools. I was evaluating general technical specifications/features and general look/feel of these tools. As a result we have decided to move forward with QF-Test. The main reason for the decision was web start support. This has turned out to be a difficult feature in the project for which we are currently looking for a new tool for test automation (we started the project with a different tool but web start support has generated number of problems).

Dorit Rieur, Senior QA Engineer, Schema LTD, Israel:

The main reason we chose QF-Test was its compliance with Java and NetBeans. I must say I have composed a set of tests and hardly need any support. The tool is intuitive, and the manual usually helps me. This is indeed a great tool to work with. We are saving lots of testing time using the automation scripts.

Damian Barnes, Software Design Engineer, Tecnomen LTD, Shannon, Ireland:

Which criteria were crucial when deciding in favor of QF-Test?

Important criteria were:

	GUI test functionality coverage
	Fetching of text from 'anonymous' JOptionPane frames
	Ability to add in user code/jars for the test procedure
	*Performance*
	Ease of use

Matt Ezren, QA developer, Creditex, Inc., New York, USA:

In 2005, I evaluated about 10 tools for automated Java GUI testing. Our table models were very complex therefore for evaluation of the tools I designed few tests/criteria which dealt with cells' content and images. Neither of the tools could perform all tests. I contacted specialists from technical support, they either admitted that their tools could not do some specific tasks, or they tried to offer workarounds, which would be an option if I would not find a tool that "does it all."

When I evaluated QF-Test, then qftestJUI, it passed all my tests. Still I was a little bit hesitant because its scripting language was Jython, and learning a new language is a considerable effort, though an extensive array of standard nodes was very simple to use. Some of other tools had scripting language which I already knew; nevertheless eventually I made my mind and selected QF-Test reasoning that reliable performance was more important than my learning efforts.

Bojan Lozinsek, Project Manager, Hermes Softlab, Maribor, Slovenia:

After evaluating a number of Java Swing test automation tools we found QF-Test to be the only one that managed to execute Java GUI tests on multiple platforms without platform dependency issues.

Let me add three sentences about your support: "This is what I call a response time! Great job! No wonder that your company is such a success :)."

Sean Kane, QA Manager, Intervoice, Dallas, USA:

This past year we looked at several test tools for eclipse. Your new eclipse support is far better than the competition. Keep the improvements coming. Your team has been very supportive when ever we have needed it. I wish you and your team continued success.

Benoit Lemarchand, Global Core Java Middleware Unit Manager, Amadeus, France:

As part of its offer, our company proposes suite of products for airline IT named Altéa. Graphical interface use complex graphical components based on Java Swing and are deployed on several tens of thousands of workstations. Deployment is costly and time consuming thus it is primordial for us to ensure high level of quality. We have then conducted a study to find suitable test tool; 7 tools have been evaluated including QF-Test and the best known products.

QF-Test has been selected for following reasons:

	It has the most powerful and reliable components recognition of all products tested; contrary to multi-language test tools, QF-Test fully exploits Java Swing specificity for component recognition.
	Speed at which QF-Test is able to play a scenario is quite impressive; it allows on time delivery without sacrifying quality.
	It is the only tool to our knowledge that offers automated solution to pause regression during server exchanges.
	Jython scripting coupled with procedure feature allow us to create powerful procedures for our testers that have no development knowledge.
	Last but not least, QFS offered us very good level of support during evaluation (and after purchase).

Joerg Paelke, PPI AG, Hamburg, Germany:

We are utilising QF-Test very successfully in various projects since 2004. Some of the tested applications have gone through a number of release cycles in the meantime.

Generalising I can state that the tests were stable across all projects and easy to maintain, provided they are suitably modularized. Due to the good coverage of our automated tests we are able to conduct revision tests within a short period.

Our primary reasons leading to our decision for QF-Test were its maintainability gained through separation of components and events, the ability to test complex structures (e.g. JTree, JTable), its lucid structuring of the test-suite (considering our very large applications) and the possibility of distributed test development.

Dario Zanotti, Siemens S.p.A., Italy:

I performed a technical evaluation on a Linux machine, and I see that QF-Test is quite user friendly, versatile and environment independent.

When I had troubles, the answers from QFS were fast and centered on the problem. Documentation is useful and quite well organized.