I think another thing to consider is that WinRunner relies more on its scripting where e-tester relies more on the record-and-playback GUI interface. e-tester does have scripting but it's always treated more as a supplement whereas with WinRunner I've found you pretty much have to script no matter what. But it's definitely not the case that whichever one is cheaper is better like someone said above. It depends on what kind of testing you need. Best bet: evaluate them. Then YOU will know which one is better - at least for you.
the questioner is not comparing like with like so there is not really a sensible answer to his question. As Jordan has pointed out he really ought to be comparing E-tester with Astra Quick Test and if he were I would find it difficult to argue with the logic of going for the cheaper of the 2.
GUI automation is GUI automation. It is not testing.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wooks: As Jordan has pointed out he really ought to be comparing E-tester with Astra Quick Test and if he were I would find it difficult to argue with the logic of going for the cheaper of the 2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not so sure about that. The poster asked about Web testing tools. Both WinRunner and e-tester can do that. Astra is a lower-end solution for Web-testing and if you need some of the extra functionality of WinRunner, you'd be better off going with that. We use WinRunner here (only for Web material) and I can tell you that Astra QuickTest did not do near enough of the job we needed. WinRunner did. (Actually, I would have preferred going with e-tester for a couple of other reasons but I was outvoted.) Now if you're saying comparing application testing that is not Web-based, then I agree: WinRunner and e-tester are a bad comparison because whereas WinRunner can do both, e-tester can't.
Well, I am kind of biased as I use e-Tester a good deal and there is something to be said for a product that was/is designed from the ground up to be a web application testing tool. I think my best advice if you are going to invest in any tool is to try them both out. I know both companies offer downloads with temp. licenses. It pays to do your homework with these kinds of decisions. Use both evaluation systems against your application and see what one feels right for you.
Just to add to this: I have never met a tool that fit the requirements as well as the vendor claimed it would.
It is true that Winrunner has more scripting support and that eTester is intended to not require it. However I am currently working on an application using the eTester tool and it has evolved into 100% VBA script.
Take the coding experience of your testing team into account when selecting the tool.
A cheap tool that you are not equipped to use properly is really rather expensive, dont you think? ...