QATestLab and an anonymised specialty retailer: Magento functional testing 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; the case publishes no metric, so nothing in it can be checked as a figure. [ev-1193]
Client profile as published
- Client
Magento-based online store of exclusive bath and body products created out of the finest natural ingredients.
(the vendor's description; the vendor does not name the client)- Segment
- Specialty retail
- Region
- not stated in the source
- Channels
- ecommerce
- Size indicators
- none given
The client description and size indicators are quoted from the source; segment, region and channels are this site's classification. [ev-1193]
Systems in scope
- Ecommerce platform (Magento): named in the Project Overview section
Where the source names each system is quoted or summarised from the case page. [ev-1193]
Problem as stated
The page lists the agency ECommerce Partners as the customer and an unnamed bath and body products store on Magento, part of the E-commerce Partners platform, as the site under test. The client needed functional, cross-browser and regression testing to check newly developed functions, and wanted results with suggestions for improvement. [ev-1193]
Approach
- Testing types
- functional (main scope: functional)
- Team shape
- 1 test engineer
- Duration
- 50 man-hours
- Engagement model
- not stated
- Tooling named in the source
- Jira
Metrics claimed
The case publishes no metric.
What the case does not say
- Baseline before the engagement.
- Measurement method.
- Cost.
- Whether the client is still a client.
- Date of the work.
Reading notes for a buyer
This case speaks to the scenario “First outsourced QA team for a mid-size retailer” and feeds dimension D1 (Retail case study evidence) of the methodology. A question to put to QATestLab:
How many bugs did the testing find, and which of the suggested improvements did the store put in place? [ev-1193]
Source and verification
- Source
- Bath and Body Products Online Store
- Published
- not dated by the vendor
- Verified
- 2026-10-30
- Evidence grade
- secondary
- Corroborating sources
- none found
| Id | Claim | Source | Class | Grade | Published | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ev-1193 | Bath and Body Products Online Store | Bath and Body Products Online Store | vendor-case-study | secondary | 2026-10-30 |
Vendor profile: QATestLab. 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 .