Share your experience using IBM Rational ClearQuest

Panaya is just a documenting tool. It performs recordings and takes screenshots.

Panaya is a good documenting tool. The solution helps with recording and documentation.

We cannot create test cases. Nothing is automatic. The tool hasn’t reduced our testing time. I have to do the manual testing. The version of the solution that I am using does not have the option to integrate with workflows.

I have been using the solution for less than six months.

I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

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.

The initial setup is easy. The deployment takes a few hours. It’s a web tool. We can access it through a browser. We just need credentials and a recorder. We don't need anybody to help us deploy the product. We simply follow the steps on the documentation.

I rate the pricing a six or seven out of ten.

Tosca is not available in our region. We do manual testing. I do not know if there is more to the tool, but I use it only for documenting purposes. We cannot compare Panaya with any other automated testing tool. It is good the way it is. The product might be able to integrate with tools like Jira for bug tracking. I would not recommend the tool to others. If I need to do testing, I would choose an automated testing tool. We have to do everything manually in Panaya. I rate the solution an eight out of ten for manual testing.

Our primary use case is for our process and we have different phases where we do testing and we have what we called IT and BPA testing. So it is a combined group of IT people and business people doing the testing after the setup. We have what we call the UFA, the user acceptance test, so those are done by the users. We put the scenarios upfront and document the scenarios and the test. We can see the percentages of the test done, what has been completed, and if there are problems. And then if there are problems we can rerun the test.

The most valuable feature is the ability to copy the scenarios so that as we do a rollout we can efficiently complete test three and put it somewhere else under a new subsidiary. Then I can redo the same test for other sites we want to implement.

For the moment we are looking to automated testing, and there today apparently it is not working well with the application we want to test. So we are using an application on a terminal server and some quirks make it challenging to make automatic testing. It would be nice to be able to test offline. What I mean by that is today most of the time things are in the cloud, but sometimes when we are in factories we do not have network access and we should be able to download a test script into our PCs and do the test offline. Once that is complete we can re-upload it when we again have a network connection.

I have been working with Panaya Test Dynamix for the past six months.

The stability has been quite good with no real issues.

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 think for companies that are implementing solutions where they need to test truthfully and document it that way, Panaya Test Dynamix is a good solution on the market. I would give them an eight on a scale of one to ten.