1. An overview of Info-Tech’s Vendor Selection Recommendation Purchase Scenario Don’t Switch QA staff/shop is well suited for Open Source Testing Tools Need Integration Between Testing & Development Tools Complexity of Automated Testing Environment Geographically Dispersed Testing Teams? Selenium/ OSS Seapine QA Wizard IBM Rational FT Micro Focus SilkTest HP QTP Refresh Scenario Simple New Implementation Complex Yes No Basic Advanced

2. Executive Summary Info-Tech Research Group2 Don’t focus on cost when short listing vendors. The price difference between tools is negligible when compared with wasted tester hours due to selection of a less than ideal tool. Labor costs at 60-80K per tester are much higher than licensing costs at $5,000-$8,000 per license. – Stick with the same vendor in a refresh scenario. Cost difference made up with an alternative vendor will be lost to training re-scripting and productivity costs. – Evaluate the suite when selecting a single tool. Improved testing efficiency and integration come from using the same vendor across the software development lifecycle (SDLC) raising the risk profile of this purchase from an investment in a single tool to a potential long-term partner. – Focus on unique features and tool fit to avoid painful switching costs. Focus on features such as workflow, reporting and versioning. Assess fit based on the complexity of the tool, and alignment with testing methodologies. Vendor demos aren’t enough; deploy trials and pilots. On site vendor demos are more glitz than substance; download and pilot demo software with defined evaluation metrics. Ensure apples to apples comparison amongst shortlisted vendors. Training and costs licensing schemes can be misleading. A single license from HP can quickly go from $8k to $24k depending on how and where it’s used, so compare all-in costs for project budgeting and final evaluations.

3. Info-Tech Research Group 3 Info-Tech evaluated vendors on the following basis Micro Focus Silk Test Seapine QA Wizard Pro HP Quick Test Pro IBM Rational Functional Tester Ease of UseMediumHigh Medium Advanced FeaturesMediumLowHigh Suite/Cross-Tool Integration HighMediumHigh Vendor/Product Stability Medium High AffordabilityMediumHighLowMedium Industry RankingCompetitor Leader HP & IBM scored high with extra features and vendor stability Vendor Shake-up. Microsoft will be adding a functional testing module to the next release of its Visual Studio. Microsoft is already recognized as the everyman solution in development and testing. This release should be significantly disruptive to the vendor landscape. For a detailed description of vendors evaluated by Info-Tech, refer to the research note, “Vendor Landscape: Automated Functional Testing Saves Time and Boosts Quality.” See the Appendix for Info-Tech’s scoring criteria.Vendor Landscape: Automated Functional Testing Saves Time and Boosts Quality

4. HP’s Quick Test Pro is the most widely adopted functional testing tool in the market Testers and contracted testing - partners may already be familiar with the platform due to QTPs popularity. This results in reducing training requirements, an expanded talent pool of testers, and sped up scripting and execution. Info-Tech Research Group4 Why go with the leader? Vendor Shake-up Part II. Micro Focus just recently announced that it plans on migrating features from it’s recently acquired Compuware Test Partner to it’s flagship Silk Functional tester and suite for future releases. Compuware clients have been assured that support for Test Partner 6.2 will be extended to 2012. *Additional demographics for this survey in Appendix II n= 34*

5. IBM’s Rational Tester allows non-technical testers to work on the same platforms as developers Strengths. Choice of languages and platforms. Users may write test scripts in VB.NET and Java using either the open source Eclipse IDE or Visual Studio.NET. Rational Functional Tester also runs on Windows and Linux platforms. Integration. Functional Tester integrates with Rational Quality Manager and more broadly with its ALM collaboration tool, Rational Team Concert. All of these are based on the open Jazz platform which facilitates third-party involvement. Weakness. Smaller QA teams or organizations with less complex applications to test may find that they will not use all the features this tool has to offer, especially if they do not leverage its integration with IBM's broader ALM offering. A simpler tool may require less training and implementation overhead. Info-Tech Research Group5 IBM Rational Functional Tester at a Glance Licensing Cost Single named: $5,440 Floating: $10,500 Test Drive This Software Teams can download and try Rational Functional Tester Rational Functional Tester Learn More For a detailed description of IBM’s Rational Functional Tester refer to the Info-Tech research note, “Automate Functional Testing with IBM Rational Functional Tester. ”Automate Functional Testing with IBM Rational Functional Tester It’s that packaging together of not just any one tool, but the requirements aspect, the construction aspect, and so on. That’s the thing that is the most attractive to me about Rational.” IT Manager, Professional Services “

6. Info-Tech Research Group6 Open Source Software (OSS) is a great alternative for enterprises with some development know-how and no capital budget OSS tools are a great alternative if: The enterprise can benefit from automation, but the capital expense budget for tools is not available. There are few development languages to test in – no need to integrate with multiple platforms. Automation will be limited to functional testing only. Popular Open Source Alternatives Description Selenium Browser-based functionality, compatibility and regression. Very popular among developers with lots of support available. JSystem Java-based tool and Eclipse plug-in built on the popular JUnit framework and Ant. Watir Provides browser-based test scripted in Ruby Canoo Web Test Built on HttpUnit and defines test in XMAL as Ant targets Info-Tech Quick Quiz: (must check off all three to pass)

7. Appendix II – Survey Demographics Info-Tech Research Group7 CategoryDemographics Number of people who answered this survey 80 Number of people with Functional testing tools 34 Positions of respondents by title Manager 28% Director 18% Team lead 18% Team member16% All other 6% or below Respondents by number of full-time IT employees 51-100 Employees 18% 1-5 Employees 16% 101-250 Employees 15% 11-25 Employees 15% All other sizes - 11% or below Respondents by industry Manufacturing 21% Transportation /Utilities/Communications 21% Government 16% Business Services 14% Financial Services 13% All other industries 4% or below Respondents by revenue 500M -1 Billion 24% 100M – 500M 18% 50-100M 14% 0 - 1M 11% All other respondents 9% or less