a1qa and an anonymised specialty retailer: SAP Commerce test automation case analysed

Verdict: what is checkable

The evidence grade (this site's label for how a case is sourced: primary with client or press confirmation, secondary when vendor-hosted only.) is secondary: the only source is the vendor's own page; of 19 metrics, 0 are verifiable yes, 0 partial and 19 no. [ev-1545]

Client profile as published

Client
one of the leading US-based manufacturers of home appliances (the vendor's description; the vendor does not name the client)
Segment
Specialty retail
Region
United States
Channels
ecommerce
Size indicators
operating globally and possessing several trademarks offering an extensive blend of products; Seven brands in different locales.; B2B and B2C dimensions

The client description and size indicators are quoted from the source; segment, region and channels are this site's classification. [ev-1545]

Systems in scope

  • Ecommerce platform (SAP Commerce Cloud (SAP Hybris Commerce Platform)): named in the Challenges section ("migration to SAP Hybris Commerce Platform") and the functional testing section ("SAP Commerce Cloud customizable features")
  • Payments (Paymetric, PayPal, Affirm): named in the functional testing section ("Each payment platform (Paymetric, PayPal, Affirm)")
  • Integrations: named in the services list ("Integration testing") and the Configured Accertify section

Where the source names each system is quoted or summarised from the case page. [ev-1545]

Problem as stated

To cut hosting costs the client was moving to SAP Hybris, but standard features did not fit its needs and the promotion module needed heavy customization. Its in-house Black Friday test plan did not cover all user behavior in peak periods. Several subprojects tested in their own ways, which left testing out of sync, and US state tax rules had to be checked. [ev-1545]

their Black Friday testing strategy wasn’t fully defined (quoted from the source)

Approach

Testing types
functional, automation and performance (main scope: automation)
Team shape
33 QA experts involved; teams ramped up or down upon client's request
Duration
4+ years of the project duration
Engagement model
not stated
Tooling named in the source
VPN GlobalProtect, Citrix Workspace, WebPageTest, Apache JMeter, Dynatrace, Postman, SAP ECC, SAP Java Connector, Splunk, PuTTY, Selenium, Cucumber, G Suite

Metrics claimed

Metrics as published, with who claims each and what this site could check.
MetricValueUnitClaimed byVerifiableEvidence
annual saving (case heading)$120KUSD per yearvendornoev-1546
operational cost reduction (Results)120Kper yearvendornoev-1547
brands in different localesSevenbrandsvendornoev-1548
brands serving commercial purposesfivebrandsvendornoev-1549
release cadenceonce every 2-3 weeksweeksvendornoev-1550
automated scriptsaround 5,000automated scriptsvendornoev-1551
manual testing days saved in two months50business daysvendornoev-1552
release verification testing time cut (test automation section)90%vendornoev-1553
release verification testing time cut (Results)90%vendornoev-1554
manual testing days saved overall (Results)hundredsbusiness daysvendornoev-1555
performance test scripts developedaround 200performance test scriptsvendornoev-1556
load test length8hoursvendornoev-1557
increase in number of potential users30%vendornoev-1557
download time decrease (Results)30%vendornoev-1558
project duration (stat block)4+yearsvendornoev-1559
QA experts involved (stat block)33QA expertsvendornoev-1560
automated test cases prepared (stat block)5,000+automated test casesvendornoev-1561
loading speed increase (stat block)30%vendornoev-1562
performance scripts written (stat block)200+performance scriptsvendornoev-1563

What the case does not say

  • Baseline before the engagement.
  • Measurement method.
  • Duration over which the metric held.
  • Cost.
  • What was out of scope.
  • Whether the client is still a client.
  • Date of the work.

Reading notes for a buyer

This case speaks to the scenario “Peak-season readiness in 90 days” and feeds dimension D3 (Peak-season and performance evidence) of the methodology. A question to put to a1qa:

What peak concurrent user load did the Black Friday tests reach, and what baseline do the download time and loading speed gains use? [ev-1545]

Source and verification

Source
QA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliances
Published
not dated by the vendor
Verified
2026-10-30
Evidence grade
secondary
Corroborating sources
none found
Evidence records for this case. First 12 of 19 shown; the rest open below.
IdClaimSourceClassGradePublishedVerified
ev-1545Manufacturing · $120K saved annually with optimized QA toolset and test automationQA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1546$120K saved annually with optimized QA toolset and test automationQA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1547Reduced operational costs by 120K per year due to the selection of a more economical testing tool.QA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1548Seven brands in different locales.QA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1549Amid them, five brands serve commercial purposes, although, the availability of some functions depends on the country.QA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1550The client delivers new functionality once every 2-3 weeks.QA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1551The number of automated scripts skyrocketed and reached around 5,000.QA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1552Test automation introduction was effective: in just two months, it contributed to saving 50 business days of the manual testing team consisting of 4 people.QA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1553All in all, test automation by a1qa curtailed the time required for release verification testing by 90%.QA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1554Accelerated time to benefit due to test automation best practices, which contributed to cutting the release verification testing time by 90%.QA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1555Faster time to benefit and reduced operational cost due to test automation implementation, which saved hundreds of business days of manual testing teams.QA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1556The team developed around 200 performance test scripts.QA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
Show 7 more evidence records
Remaining evidence records.
IdClaimSourceClassGradePublishedVerified
ev-1557The team carried out 8-hour load tests, and the number of potential users was increased by 30%.QA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1558Improved solutions’ performance and stability owing to building the test approach from the ground up, decreasing the download time by 30%, and ensuring unhindered operation of all websites during Black Friday.QA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-15594+ years of the project durationQA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-156033 QA experts involvedQA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-15615,000+ automated tests cases preparedQA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-156230% increase in loading speed of all eCommerce solutionsQA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30
ev-1563200+ performance scripts writtenQA support to a large-scale manufacturer of home appliancesvendor-case-studysecondary2026-10-30

Vendor profile: a1qa. System facet: Ecommerce platform testing vendors.

Positions on this page are computed from the methodology published at /methodology/ and from the evidence records linked on this page. Case study figures are the vendor's or the client's claims as published at the linked source; the "verifiable" column states what this site could check. The site does not recommend vendors, does not accept paid placement and does not publish rates. Last computed: 2026-11-03.

Published by the editor of retailqavendors.com. Last reviewed .