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

Perfecto vs Qt Squish comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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

Perfecto
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
21st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (12th), Functional Testing Tools (19th), Mobile App Testing Tools (5th)
Qt Squish
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
12th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Perfecto is 2.3%, down from 2.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qt Squish is 2.2%, down from 3.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Qt Squish2.2%
Perfecto2.3%
Other95.5%
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1963857 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Quality at a comms service provider with 1,001-5,000 employees
The network testing can be accessed from anywhere in the world, but the UI needs revamping
Recently, the network testing component where we can use Perfecto on devices has been the most valuable feature. There is very little competition out there in this regard. We use it for 4G and 5G testing of launched 5G and 4G brands. So, the network testing can be accessed from anywhere in the world. That is very valuable for us. Perfecto is very good when it comes to executing cross-platform testing. We have just gotten started on cross-browser testing. We already use Perfecto for the native-application testing on multiple devices. I think now we also use Perfecto for browser-related testing. So, all the cross-browser testing works well. We got a couple of licenses that we use. We can mostly see usage over time using the device logs. This is what matters the most to us, e.g., what team is using a device for how long. We use Cypress, and it supports it quite well. We use APM, and it also supports that quite well. We used to use the native quantum framework as well in the past, which was obviously well-supported, but now we have moved onto Cypress and APM. Also, we have Applitools, which is not open source, but a paid proprietary tool.
Luc Vangrunderbeeck - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Test Engineer at Infrabel
Testing solution supports Java testing with good reliability
There is nothing you can do for almost every application. If you do it for a single version, it is rather easy. However, if you want to run it for different versions of the software, then you need the Qt version of Java. You need to set up some special environment variables to be able to do that.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It has saved hours of manual testing time, costs and efforts."
"The CI dashboard tool is very good, as is the Live Stream monitoring. Whenever I want to monitor execution, I can open multiple tabs in Perfecto and it is easy for me to refer to the CI dashboard and the Live Stream."
"The most valuable feature is automated testing."
"Perfecto facilitates delivering the product on time, through the cloud devices, so that there is no impact to our end-users."
"We are continuously doing testing on different environments, devices, and platforms. It executes seamlessly on multiple devices without having any connectivity issues. It has been really helpful for us to test on cloud devices."
"The automation piece is the most valuable feature. Every time we had a new version of either OS or an application, we found that being able to automate the testing across different devices is very valuable."
"One of the good things about Perfecto is the scalability that it provides, as we are able to quickly scale up the devices and choose Android devices, web-based applications, or whatever we need, and we can scale up quickly and easily."
"We are able to offer a quality product that has been tested fully, which improves our customer satisfaction. That is a good thing. It has also reduced our IT infrastructure cost. We don't have to spend a lot on setting up infrastructure, which becomes redundant or obsolete very soon. It helps in offsetting that cost."
"If you are looking for simple, not expensive, with nice support and for Qt-application tool – I think, it’s the best one."
"Now we have completely automated the Squish runs using CI tools and Squish is not at all getting stuck or creating any problem."
"Our previous, haphazard approach to testing was not effective, and using Squish has led us into an organized mode of testing."
"This product can work with QT applications and cross-cut from them, both on Windows OS and on Mac, as well as on mobile operating systems like iOS and Android too."
"Squish's data-driven testing is very powerful, so it will never be stuck if the size of data is too heavy."
"Powerful and intuitive Integrated Development Environment (IDE) - I use this IDE daily for creating new tests, debugging tests and running tests."
"Customer support was good; they work out of the box and are willing to add a new feature if we say and if it is feasible."
"Squish saved our time and money by creating reusable operating system independent test scripts."
 

Cons

"It does well for mobile testing, but when it comes to the web aspect, it is lagging a little bit in terms of execution."
"We don't use Perforce's BlazeMeter with Perfecto. From my perspective, it's not really relevant."
"If we could run an accessibility test in Perfecto against builds, it would help us a lot. Currently, that's a very manual process for us. We haven't found a tool that can do accessibility scans for iOS and doesn't depend on engineering effort. Having a feature related to that would be really awesome for us."
"Going by the dashboard or analytics capabilities that Perfecto or Perforce is looking to offer in its roadmap, it will certainly help if they also cater to executing and enabling decision-making, rather than just focusing on standard testing metrics such as execution, efficiency, and defect rate. These are good metrics, but they don't necessarily enable decision-making for SLTs. Any improvements in the dashboards and reporting tools should focus on metrics or SLAs that can help with decision-making."
"Its performance should be improved. Anything to speed up the user interface would be a great help. We've had a lot of pain with their migration from a product UI that was based on Adobe Flash to the new product that is based on HTML5. Migrations like that seemed to be very painful and not a real smooth process. We're still sort of recovering from that migration from old technology to new, and we haven't got all the functionality ported over that we used to have on the old UI."
"There was a discussion about having the capability to export the test results to a certain tool that we use in our project. If that were added it would be great not having to manually take screenshots, put them in a document, and share them on the different test management tools."
"We feel that Perfecto is a little slow. If they could improve on that slowness in accessing the app, when we want to click a button, that would be great because we feel the difference. An improvement in the connectivity speed is required."
"When using devices on the cloud, it lags quite a bit at times."
"It still requires better solutions for object identification and an enhancement to identify all the objects of the AUT before building the object map."
"It would make the work of the Squish user easier and quicker if Squish would display the proper feature names, when assigned."
"The only criticism I have is the IDE needed a bit of polish in version 5.2 (this may have been fixed in the latest versions)."
"The most complete way of testing is on several OS's, even platforms. Here, the solution provided by Squish, through several Python script files, could be simplified in such a way, so that even black box testers could manage it easily."
"Support isn't always helpful. I sometimes need to find solutions myself."
"You need to set up some special environment variables."
"Anyhow, we can't automate the applications which are completely built on C/C++ without using Qt."
"The price could be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's definitely on the higher end of prices for this type of service."
"Although Perfecto is a good product for us to use, it is a bit expensive. It takes management a bit of work to find the appropriate funding for us to keep Perfecto. I imagine there could be some way to make it more accessible."
"This is an expensive solution compared to others, by 30% to 40%."
"Perfecto's price is excellent compared to other products with similar features. It was the lowest of the three we evaluated. We also established a partnership with Perfecto, so they provide discounts when we sell Perfecto projects and licenses to our customers."
"I am not sure about its pricing, but from our perspective, licensing has been easy. Anytime I have new users or requests for users that want to get added, it's a very simple process. I just give the architectural owner of the product the name and email address, and they're able to easily add a new user. We don't have any issues in regards to getting licenses, but I don't have any insights into pricing."
"Pricing is an area where Perfecto can do a little better. When we obtain additional licenses, we enter into negotiations with them."
"Perfecto is about 30-40% cheaper than Device Anywhere. That was a big reason why we switched. Perfecto also solves some of the issues that we had with Device Anywhere. We have grown by 100% since we started to use Perfecto, and now we have devices roaming. When we look at the competition, we would still stick with Perfecto."
"Pricing-wise, it is fine. It is not as expensive as what we used to have in the past from HP, IBM, and others. It is decently priced."
"It is expensive."
"The platform is highly-priced."
"The price could be better. I believe each developer license costs about 6000 or 7000 Euros per year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
19%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise23
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise9
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for froglogic Squish?
I'm aware of the price from three or four years ago, and it depends on the number of users. For the developer license, it is about $5200 a year.
What needs improvement with froglogic Squish?
There is nothing you can do for almost every application. If you do it for a single version, it is rather easy. However, if you want to run it for different versions of the software, then you need ...
What is your primary use case for froglogic Squish?
I am not really using the solution during development, however, for regression and automatic regression tests, I am using it. I use it to do visual Qt, which focuses on the GUI part of the applicat...
 

Also Known As

Perfecto Mobile, Perfecto Web
froglogic Squish
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Virgin Media, Paychex, Rabobank, R+V, Discover
Google, Nokia, Pfizer, Siemens, Synopsys, Airbus, Boeing, Mercedes Benz, Disney, Shell, Reuters, Vodafone, XILINX, GE, Ericsson
Find out what your peers are saying about Perfecto vs. Qt Squish and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.