73 Test IO Reviews
Overall Review Sentiment for Test IO
Log in to view review sentiment.
Good UI, clean bug reports, the ability to run multiple cycles at the same time, and results in days (or hours) instead of a week. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Not much. Inability to see some defect reports until very end of the cycle. Sometimes hard to find testers for the more obscure environments (although test IO will work with you on this). Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
The ability to have my content tested over night. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
The Language barrier can make things a little difficult, this can be over come by explaining things a little more clearly than you would think you have to do. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Testers appear to do *a lot* of testing of our site, often finding obscure bugs along with the more noticeable ones that occur in more common user flows. Bugs are reported with clear steps to reproduce, screenshots, and videos. I appreciate the range of testing devices and operating systems, which include many devices that our user base has that our internal staff doesn't use as their primary device. The Jira integration makes it easy to create new bugs with the content from the Test.IO testers. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
The Jira app could use some small improvements. I often need to reload the Jira page in order for the call-to-action buttons of the Test.IO bugs to work. (Not sure if that's a Jira or Test.IO app issue.) Also, the Jira app does not show the browser/OS info (although that is passed along if you create a Jira issue), so I'm sometimes forced to log into the Test.IO site if I want to find that information. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
I really like the depth that Test IO goes into when testing sites. Examples of this would be finding a link that was an absolute URL and pointing to a staging site, or finding straggler Lorem Ipsum text on an internal page, and so forth. They really help save our reputation in these situations by ensuring that any mistakes are found before we go live! Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
My only dislike would be that, sometimes the report includes issues that are not actually bugs, but more design suggestions. At the point that we're submitting to Test IO, we're already firm on the design elements and are just interested in bugs, so these particular suggestions don't really help us overall. But I just skip over those items in the report and continue on with the bugs. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
I like that we can get instant feedback on features that we put on our digital products and in-depth usability feedback when sending over surveys. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
I dislike that if I am running a survey that requires me to cross-reference for the tester user names, the interface does not list the tester user name per bug report sent in. I have to click into each bug report to see who sent it in, which is not the most efficient approach. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
The results are great and they have a pretty quick turnaround time. Also, they attempt to reproduce the issues found on multiple devices for sanity. Also, I love the way how you can easily duplicate and/or edit tests for each cycle. Testers seem pretty thorough and accountable. I also love how you could potentially have multiple cycles running at once for multiple project/platforms. All in all, test.io is a great platform with awesome admins and testers. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
I can't really think of any downsides. The interface is great and it's very user-friendly. I think the communication is great as well with the emails for when a test starts and completes. Also, appreciate the support from Justin Tanisawa. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
- Devices pool: We always have access to devices that we need for our cross-compatibility Coverage testing.
- Fresh eyes: This concept involves thousand of testers that can help uncover new/different issues from various experiences and perspective
- Types of testing coverage: Mainly rely on Coverage testing and Focused testing
- Reports: I got an EoW report that summarizes my weekly testing activities, besides the actual test execution summary
- Continues Support: Sometimes the JIRA integration feature might be overwhelming. Yet, operational POC can always help configure and set it up to as needed
- Roadmap visibility: They always take feedback to improve their platform. Moreover, you get a peek on new features in the pipeline that will help using the platform. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
- Two-way sync and the JIRA process flow might be a bit confusing. Luckily, our operations POC helped us set it up.
- Redundant/ Existing tickets within JIRA projects (internally) can be handled in a better way to link them to the Know Bugs list that Testio finds.
- Sometimes we still get the same reported bug, after being rejected or even accepted. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
The quality, quantity and coverage of the bugs found is impressive, and an integral component of our test strategy. The exploratory nature of the test.io testing approach tends to uncover interesting bugs - I'm often amazed at how creative the test.io testers are in exploring deep and detailed flows. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
I'd like to see out-of-box support for regularly scheduled (templated) regression test runs. The UX-specific testing could also benefit from cohorting (being able to select specific audiences of UX testers for a given test). Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Test.IO highly eases our process of finding and identifying bugs. Thanks to the testers, we can test our products in many kinds of different devices and browsers. Also, the team leads are doing a very well job on eliminating out of scope bugs. And I have to say that Test.IO has magnificent customer support. Anytime we got stuck on a process, we got immediate help from their support. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
API section can be improved with more options to make API calls and with more detailed user guides. Also, the user interfaces can be improved. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
