No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
9th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
4.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (3rd), AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (3rd)
Telerik Test Studio
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
23rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (25th), Load Testing Tools (12th), Regression Testing Tools (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Digital.ai Continuous Testing is 1.3%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.7%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Digital.ai Continuous Testing1.3%
Telerik Test Studio1.7%
Other97.0%
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Mampi Bhattacharya - PeerSpot reviewer
Developer at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Continuous testing has accelerated daily releases and now provides faster, richer debugging insights
Digital.ai Continuous Testing could be better in certain areas, and I can share my experience-based view on what can be frustrating. One issue is device availability and queue delays during peak CI hours. Sometimes devices are busy, causing tests to queue and the pipeline to slow down unexpectedly, which is especially painful for large regression suites or tight release timelines. Improvements are needed in smarter auto-scaling of device pools and better priority-based scheduling. Additionally, execution speed variability occurs; the same test sometimes runs fast and sometimes slow, depending on device load and network latency, making results less predictable. More stable execution environments and better performance isolation per session would help. Furthermore, debugging can still be indirect; even with logs or videos, I do not fully control the device as I would with local debugging, making it hard to pause and inspect live states or reproduce edge-case issues locally. More interactive debugging and improved local reproduction tools are necessary. Cost versus usage efficiency is another area of concern, as device cloud usage can be expensive and we sometimes have idle or inefficient tests that waste money. Improvements in usage analytics and cost optimization suggestions for smart test selection to run only impacted tests are areas where I believe Digital.ai Continuous Testing could improve.
Raghvendra Jyothi - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager Project Management at Capgemini
Very good performance and load testing capabilities
There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable part of Experitest is the number of real devices on which the test is run."
"I have seen a clear positive ROI after implementing Digital.ai Continuous Testing, especially in terms of time saving, faster release cycle, and improved efficiency."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has positively impacted my organization with massive reductions in testing time, enabling us to cut our regression cycle from two to three days down to two to three hours, transition from weekly releases to nearly daily deployments, and reduce production defects by 30 to 50% while significantly improving debugging efficiency and overall team productivity."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has had a very positive impact in terms of efficiency and quality."
"Experitest is one of the only companies to offer a real device on the cloud to perform testing, and they also provide quality documentations that help you navigate and maximize the solution."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has had a pretty positive impact on the organization, especially in terms of speed and reliability."
"The most useful feature for me is Mobile Studio. It has a UI where I can click on elements, and it generates a script for me. Mobile Studio can generate code from testing steps. I'm using Python with it."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"The object repository is the most valuable feature, as different elements can be identified and reutilized through the repository across other scripts, and the product has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
 

Cons

"The amount of time that I have spent on just figuring out how to use Experitest and get it to work was quite long compared to what I have been doing before."
"One challenge is that the initial setup and integration with CI/CD pipelines can sometimes be a bit complex, especially for teams new to automation."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing is a solid tool, but there are a few things that can be frustrating at times."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing is a strong platform, but there are a few areas where it could be improved to make the experience even better."
"I would also like to see more videos and descriptions that could make installation more efficient."
"I have been automating tests for many years on many things but not on mobile devices. The amount of time that I have spent on just figuring out how to use Experitest and get it to work was quite long compared to what I have been doing before. I spent the first two weeks just getting it started. It would be good to have some video explanation of how to use it on your devices and get started. Their online documentation is quite good and extensive, but it would be quite good to have some end-to-end examples demonstrated."
"The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I submit a ticket to technical support, but they often have to fix it in the next version."
"Device availability and queue delays during peak CI hours are an issue; sometimes devices are busy, causing tests to queue and the pipeline to slow down unexpectedly, which is especially painful for large regression suites or tight release timelines."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"We have not seen a return on investment yet."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"The first time I customized the solution, it was quite challenging."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker."
"We make monthly payments. The cost is dependent on the number of devices we intend to support."
"It is quite fairly priced, but it really depends on your budget. It is somewhere in the mid-range of products. It is not free and it is not QGP that nearly costs a whole house. You pay for the number of users who require access to execute the tests."
"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
University
16%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Outsourcing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
11%
Construction Company
11%
University
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise2
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker.
What needs improvement with Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
Digital.ai Continuous Testing is a solid tool, but there are a few things that can be frustrating at times. One thing I noticed is that the initial setup and configuration can feel complex, especia...
What is your primary use case for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The main use case for Digital.ai Continuous Testing has been automating test execution as part of the CI/CD pipeline, especially for ensuring builds are stable before the release. For example, I us...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Experitest Seetest, Experitest
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, American Express, Barclays, China Mobile, Citi, Cisco, McAfee
Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T
Find out what your peers are saying about Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. Telerik Test Studio and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.