Sauce Labs Reviews

• Running tests in parallel
• Sauce Connect Proxy tunnel
• JIRA/Bamboo plugins

Enables faster execution of regression tests without having to support/maintain the software needed to validate regressions against different devices, OS, and browsers.

Speeds up the time it takes to run end-to-end user interface (UI) tests inside their virtual machines (VMs).

Less than a year.

None yet.

Not yet.

Not yet.

Excellent, so far.

Excellent, so far.

Yes. We built and managed all of our testing infrastructure in-house.

Pretty straightforward, except when you begin working within an enterprise organization that operates nearly all of its web applications behind a firewall. To get our automation running inside Sauce Labs's infrastructure, we first have to install and configure the Sauce Connect Proxy server. The complexity of setting up the tunnel comes mainly from the protocols our organization has for getting the approval to implement Sauce Labs behind our firewall. Explaining the details of the tunnel, why we need Sauce Labs for regression testing, and facilitating the connection between our Server's team with a Sauce Labs technical resource were all fairly complex.

In-house.

It is difficult to estimate at this time.

Start small, even if you are a large-to-enterprise level organization. The setup cost, if you're an enterprise-sized organization, is negligible. Establish a few quick and easy "wins" for one or two product teams. Hold a post-Sauce review with all the stakeholders within each team with the goal of reaching a consensus on whether the product is a good long-term fit. If the answer is yes, then calculate ROI, and if it makes sense, scale up and spend the money so every product that should use Sauce has access and the correct bandwidth.

SmartBear, Perfecto, and Ranorex.

I like the parallel run feature the most. It is very useful to run on different simulators and emulators.

Testing is very fast with this tool. Also, running automation is a very easy task now.

The speed needs to increase. Something with real device also need to improve.

Two years.

No.

No.

No.

Good.

Good.

No, we didn't use a different solution previously.

The initial setup is straightforward.

In-house.

Good.

Worth the purchase.

No, we did not.

Use it and love it. It is worth purchasing and using.

The ability to run on multiple browsers, simulators, and emulators and the ability to proxy to other locations. Also, it runs on the cloud, so you don't have physical setups to run all of this.

Currently, it's being used to run tests after deployment of some of our services so we know the status of the services. We also use it to run tests on a schedule so we can check the status of the services (if it's passing/failing). Because we can start up more than one VM through it, we can also run the tests in parallel, meaning tests can be completed faster than running it locally on one machine.

Start execution time as each time a set of tests start, it will launch a new VM so it takes a bit of time.

A couple of months.

Just some of the slowness, we are still investigating if this can be improved on our end and if it's network related.

Some browsers doesn't support video playback which we use for some of our tests.

If too many tests are run in parallel using Sauce Connect, sometimes the tests time out. So we had to limit the number of parallel executions.

Pretty good. The customer service guys are responsive, and will respond with a reply in less than a day.

It is also quite good. Some good suggestions are given when questions are asked.

Previously, we were only running it locally.

Pretty straightforward as the documentation is quite extensive.

In-house.

I would say quite high.

Trial the product and see if it suits your needs.

Nope.

I would definitely recommend - the community and customer service are good. The improvements are continuous with regular updates.

The parallel run is awesome.

Can run more tests at one time.

A little bit more speed needed to improve it.

Two years.

No.

No.

No.

Good.

It's the best.

No, I didn't use a different solution.

Straightforward.

In-house.

Good.

No.

It's a great tool. Go ahead with it.

The abundance of device, platform, and browser combinations/versions that can be used in parallel.

Test engineers can now run more tests without bogging down the power of their PC which enables them to multitask, getting more work done.

Unable to segregate reports for tests that are currently being developed, and might not be returning useful results.

One year.

Setting up infrastructure was challenging, but worth the effort.

No.

No.

Very positive. From the sales reps to the customer success reps, Sauce Labs is truly dedicated to ensuring an outstanding experience.

Good.

Previously, we had attempted to create our own, on-premise, device grids. There were many difficulties, and in the end, there were cost savings with outsourcing this.

Opening the network securely was challenging, but once established, it was very easy to start executing automated tests through the proxy.

We worked closely with Sauce Labs' support and technical teams to implement the solution properly in-house.

A lot.

Do your homework.

Yes, I won't name them, but we looked at two other products of a similar nature.

The APIs that are offered play a huge role in reporting and metrics for us. Figuring out how to utilize them can be of a tremendous value add to any organization making data-driven decisions.

Test run on simulators and emulators.

No need to purchase more real devices.

Speed.

Three years.

No.

No.

No.

Good.

Good.

No.

Straightforward.

In-house.

Good.

Good.

No.

No.

Great user interface.

Works great.

Having video recording would be great.

12 months.

No.

No.

No.

Never used.

Never used.

No.

Not complex at all.

In-house.

It's awesome. Its multifold increased our test efficiency.

Not too expensive for the ROI.

No.

Testing my app on cloud has really helped us with save time and resources to procure various hardware and software, and set those up. The convenience of getting the test done with one click on several browsers/platforms is the key feature we use all the time.

We are saving a ton of the required lead time before starting any tests. Before, we would plan months ahead on browsers/platforms to determine the needed support, and keep them ready as development happened. Now, we can be much more efficient. Our feature design to the delivery timeline is not tied down by our ability to test anymore.

Better and programmatic controls on request/response recordings and sharing with developers.

Slightly over a year.

No, it was smooth.

We very rarely have had any crashes, but otherwise it is stable as a rock.

No.

I have not personally needed it yet, but their documentation and examples are solid.

Not applicable.

Everything else was homegrown; nothing like this.

Not at all.

Ourselves.

Yet to be measured, but if i were to take a wild swing at it, it's more than 1000%.

Go ahead please. Try it at a smaller scale.

None that I am aware of.

All features are excellent, especially the parallel runs.

Fast execution.

Nothing, all is good.

One year.

No.

No.

Sometimes.

Good.

Good.

No.

Straightforward.

In-house.

Good.

No.

It's good to use.

• Simulators
• Parallel testing

Faster access to different versions of browsers, without needing to worry about hardware or software limitations; 99% uptime.

It would be helpful if they included more user-friendly reports. In addition, I would like to see them continue to introduce more browsers and mobile versions.

One year.

Not so far.

Not so far.

Not so far.

Eight out of 10.

Eight out of 10.

We were using a local solution. We switched so we would not have to worry about hardware or software limitations.

Straightforward. You just need a username and key to start.

Eight out of 10.

100%.

It's a little expensive, but worth it.

Not really.

No.