The obvious major difference is the ability to use the crowd as well as automate; which I believe is unique to Rainforest.
Outwardly, the way they automate is very similar to us. Looking a little deeper, it seems like they _do_ use the DOM pretty heavily (from re watching the video at https://reflect.run). For us, this is a fundamental difference - we do not believe in this; we want to automate testing-like-humans. It's harder, but we believe replicating how a human would detect things working or not (visually, via kvm) ends up with less brittle, easier to maintain tests that are closer to the reality of how a human would interact with your app.
Also, we test using VMs (or physical devices if needed for mobile) - allowing us to test the browser, or any other kind of software. This lets us support a large combination of OS and browser variants out of the box, or custom images for enterprise. Reflect doesn't seem to support more than Chrome when I last looked.
Digging a little more - their pricing; our free plan seems equivalent (yet with better data retention, and no user limits, and email testing included) to their $99/mo plan.
Outwardly, the way they automate is very similar to us. Looking a little deeper, it seems like they _do_ use the DOM pretty heavily (from re watching the video at https://reflect.run). For us, this is a fundamental difference - we do not believe in this; we want to automate testing-like-humans. It's harder, but we believe replicating how a human would detect things working or not (visually, via kvm) ends up with less brittle, easier to maintain tests that are closer to the reality of how a human would interact with your app.
Also, we test using VMs (or physical devices if needed for mobile) - allowing us to test the browser, or any other kind of software. This lets us support a large combination of OS and browser variants out of the box, or custom images for enterprise. Reflect doesn't seem to support more than Chrome when I last looked.