Squish dropped out relatively early. From the user’s point of view test cases, also in complex scenarios, could just be generated by QF-Test.
Micros Retail compares GUIdancer to QF-Test
Comparison matrix
| Criteria | GUIdancer | QF-Test |
|---|---|---|
| AUT started as part of the testcase | No | Yes |
| Testcases can be versioned | Yes | No (but testcases are stored in XML → versioning by CVS possible) |
| Batch execution possible (needed for nightly build integration) | Yes (but complex as project database needs to be available) | Yes |
| Ant Targets available | Yes (ANT integration with exec task possible) | Yes (ANT integration with exec task possible) |
| Complexity | ||
| Separation of logical and physical components | Yes | No |
| If-when-else-conditions | No (can be reached by using event handlers) | Yes |
| More than one AUT possible (SMS + POS) | No (planned for Q1/2010) | Yes |
| Database integration | No (database scripts can be executed as external tasks) | Yes |
| Support of Script languages | No (Scripts can be executed as external tasks) | Yes (Jython, Groovy, JavaScript) |
| Properties can be used to pass parameters into the testsuite | No (Excel-Files can be used) | Yes |
Evaluation report: Squish vs. GUIdancer vs. QF-Test – June 2010, Sebastian Behrens, Micros Retail (former Torex), Berlin.
(Original German texts and citations are translated into English.)