Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Perforce QA Wizard Pro [EOL] vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 8, 2025

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

Perforce QA Wizard Pro [EOL]
Average Rating
5.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.4
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Telerik Test Studio
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (24th), Load Testing Tools (17th), Regression Testing Tools (12th), Test Automation Tools (26th)
 

Featured Reviews

AK
Shared change lists are helpful, but poor scalability leads to problems with instability
The biggest problems with this solution have to do with scale. If the load is high then your request is put on hold for a second, and then you have to handle it. If you make a lot of requests then it is your problem. It would be very helpful if a queue was implemented to handle, for example, 100 requests at the same time. Any additional request would be put on hold and made to wait for a few seconds. Once the network and infrastructure are loaded to handle the next request, it would proceed.
Raghvendra Jyothi - PeerSpot reviewer
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 feature is the option to pull changes from others or make local changes in your own change list."
"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."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
 

Cons

"It would be very helpful if a queue was implemented to handle, for example, 100 requests at the same time."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"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."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
857,162 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
21%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
12%
Financial Services Firm
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Ubisoft, Expedia, Honda, Samsung,Citrix
Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, UiPath and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: May 2025.
857,162 professionals have used our research since 2012.