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

ACCELQ vs UiPath Test Cloud comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 22, 2026

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

ACCELQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
37th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
18th
Ranking in API Testing Tools
15th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
22nd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (13th), AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (7th), AI Quality Assurance (9th)
UiPath Test Cloud
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
6th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
4th
Ranking in API Testing Tools
7th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of ACCELQ is 1.4%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of UiPath Test Cloud is 3.3%, down from 5.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
UiPath Test Cloud3.3%
ACCELQ Automate1.4%
Other95.3%
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

PrabhuKrishnamoorthy - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director at Ascendion
Provides good stability and a valuable object identification feature
We evaluated data testing for millions of records. As per architecture, it can efficiently run a few thousands of records. However, we couldn't implement it for millions of records. Thus, it works well for a small amount of data. We have 30 users for it in our organization and use it daily. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten.
SK
Senior Solutions Architect at a outsourcing company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Integrates well and supports end-to-end workflows with API integration
I deal with various tools including UiPath Test Cloud, Sauce Labs, Postman, and the latest feature, Copilot, so I use everything. A lot of tools are involved. There is a significant difference between Sauce Labs and UiPath Test Cloud; while Sauce Labs offers automation capabilities, the differentiating factor is test coverage. UiPath Test Cloud hits a higher percentage of test cases per lines of code, which means it may cover 7,000 lines in automated tests from 10,000, as opposed to 3,000-4,000 lines with Sauce Labs in a similar scenario. Sauce Labs is less expensive than some of the other tools, and while UiPath Test Cloud has become much better and easier to use than in the past, Sauce Labs was initially user-friendly, but now UiPath Test Cloud has improved significantly from its earlier, more complicated interface.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The platform contributes to faster test release cycles."
"The console, in a single pane, allows us to understand where we are in the testing environment."
"UiPath's tools are generally designed for business users, so they can be as simple or as complex as needed."
"Its automated execution when a different package changes and using different test cases defined in an Excel file are particularly useful."
"Test Manager is helpful for tracking process steps. We can see which step is failing."
"Test Suite has multiple tools that are fully integrated. It has everything you need to record your test cases, generate your documentation, and integrate synthetic data with your Orchestrator. I like the integrated aspect of it. The biggest advantage of UiPath is that it not only tests but also integrates with all the other services to offer a complete package."
"It's effective at testing whatever automation we've built or making sure the automation we've built is working fine."
"We could use it for Oracle and SAP and it did help significantly."
"It has reduced all the deployment cycles of the automation solutions by forty percent."
 

Cons

"The platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details."
"They could improve the visualization of the product."
"We are facing problems specifically with Desk Manager."
"The product releases sometimes have issues."
"Our primary application is built on Windows, so we've faced no significant challenges. However, I think mobile automation is one area where the solution still needs some work."
"With Selenium, there is a plugin called Healenium, which helps automatically detect changed properties of objects. With one click, it automatically updates the object repository with the changed properties. I would like UiPath to add that capability."
"UiPath needs to improve its Test Manager feature. Defect management and reporting also need improvement."
"It would be very beneficial to do load testing with Test Suite."
"There is room for improvement in terms of introducing framework compatibility. Many companies use test automation as an alternative to Selenium but need to develop a fully functional bot in UiPath to test on it, which is inefficient."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten. It can be optimized."
"When we decided to buy the solution three and a half years ago, it was fairly priced."
"It represents good value for the investment."
"I wasn't involved in the negotiations for the UiPath Test Suite, so I have no information on its pricing."
"It is a little bit more expensive than Selenium, but it provides value for money. There are multiple types of licenses such as the Test Suite license, Studio Pro license, Test Manager license, and Test Robot license. The overall cost estimation is 13,800 dollars."
"One robot license costs 1,500 euros."
"I am not aware of the exact cost. It seems reasonable, but it is an additional cost."
"Its price is a bit high."
"UiPath Test Suite is a cost-effective solution. Orchestrator is the most expensive UiPath module, costing around $20,000, but you don't need to purchase Orchestrator to use Test Suite. You can buy a nonproductive version that costs about $2,400. It's a better value than other products I've seen."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
17%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise19
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for UiPath Test Suite?
I consider it expensive. I would rate it a seven out of ten for pricing. It's priced per license on an annual basis. Our customers usually pay around 30K to 35K for five licenses, which is priced p...
What needs improvement with UiPath Test Suite?
The speed could be improved. I've noticed that adding more users impacts the speed, although nothing stops entirely. The speed for each transaction might be slower, but I cannot pinpoint exactly wh...
What is your primary use case for UiPath Test Suite?
My use case for this product is specific to a high-profile project within the life sciences domain, where I am involved in the transportation of critical emergency medications that get prescribed a...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

ACCELQ Unified
Test Suite
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

FISCHER, optanix, ERICSSON, BenifitMall, QuickPivot, DIGITALFUEL, westcreek
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Katalon Studio, Worksoft and others in Test Automation Tools. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.