Take the complexity out of testing graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and human-machine interfaces (HMIs) – even in the face of product evolution and safety-critical applications.
| Type | Title | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Test Automation Tools | Jul 28, 2025 | Download |
| Product | Reviews, tips, and advice from real users | Jul 28, 2025 | Download |
| Comparison | Qt Squish vs Tricentis Tosca | Jul 28, 2025 | Download |
| Comparison | Qt Squish vs UiPath Test Cloud | Jul 28, 2025 | Download |
| Comparison | Qt Squish vs OpenText Functional Testing | Jul 28, 2025 | Download |
| Title | Rating | Mindshare | Recommending | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tricentis Tosca | 4.1 | 21.8% | 96% | 111 interviewsAdd to research |
| Katalon Studio | 3.9 | 9.4% | 89% | 47 interviewsAdd to research |
Qt Squish was previously known as froglogic Squish.
Google, Nokia, Pfizer, Siemens, Synopsys, Airbus, Boeing, Mercedes Benz, Disney, Shell, Reuters, Vodafone, XILINX, GE, Ericsson
I use Froglogic Squish for desktop UI testing.
I find it very user-friendly and easy to start working with. The main benefit for me is that it allows testing applications developed in the Qt language. This capability makes Squish a game-changer, as it's the only tool I've found that enables automation for applications written in Qt.
I appreciate three main aspects. Firstly, the documentation is excellent. Secondly, I value the way the tool efficiently locates elements during testing. These are the two aspects I particularly like.
I'm relatively new to Squish, so I'm not familiar with all its pros and cons. Currently, I haven't identified any specific improvements. However, one feature I miss is Git integration within the tool. In my previous experience with Selenium and Python in PyCharm, it was straightforward to create and review changes before pushing them. I haven't found a similar option in Squish, and having an integrated tool for managing conflicts would be beneficial in certain scenarios where collaboration is involved.
I have just started working for a couple of months with this solution.
It's stable.
As I mentioned earlier, we haven't completed the full cycle yet. However, based on what I know, defining test modules for remote machines and generating reports seemed straightforward. In the direct desktop version, it was easy to set up and execute tests on remote machines, with reports automatically generated and sent via email without much configuration. However, I currently face challenges executing tests on remote machines and generating reports in the Squish GUI Tester.
The process was straightforward for me. However, I haven't completed the full cycle with a remote machine yet. Currently, I'm using it locally on my PC, and it's working well in this context.
Actually, we use a device floating license, which means it's only for one user—either me or my team lead at this point. As for maintenance, there are some pros and cons, but overall, it's manageable. We've established procedures for working and maintaining the code, and I don't find it particularly difficult.
At this point, it's too early to provide a definitive assessment of Squish. However, I believe any tool that can automate processes is valuable and will likely yield a return on investment in the future. Currently, I cannot provide detailed insights, but I anticipate its worthiness in the long run.
It's quite expensive.
Certainly, I would recommend Squish. I would rate it around eight to nine.
