SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

We have applications related to power plants, and we use the solution to do integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation.

The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.

The solution’s customer support should be improved. We have some old products, and sometimes, we face challenges supporting them. The new version of SmartBear TestComplete doesn't support the old products.

If you're running a lot of tests, the solution should have a collaborative test summary or dashboard.

I have been using SmartBear TestComplete for eight years.

I am satisfied with the solution’s scalability. Around eight to ten users use the solution in our organization.

With SmartBear TestComplete, you won't get support when you are stuck. The solution's support should be enhanced. The solution has a knowledge base, but that is limited.

Neutral

I have previously worked with QTP and Selenium.

The solution's initial setup is very easy and takes a few minutes.

SmartBear TestComplete has helped us save time by 40% to 50%.

The solution's licensing cost has increased because it has moved to some new SLM-based licenses.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing an eight to nine out of ten.

The solution's data-driven testing and script management features are very effective. If used smartly, the solution's test automation is good, and I recommend it. However, I don't prefer using it for everything. Test automation should reduce your effort, not increase it.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

It is primarily used for automating web-based scenarios and also for automating desktop applications.

It has been instrumental in my work by automating regression testing and assisting in generating test data for performance testing.

This company offers end-to-end capabilities for test suite creation and execution. One feature that I particularly appreciate is the tagging system. Tags are highly valuable, as they allow you to assign tags to your test cases. When there's an impact in a specific area, you can search for and run all test cases associated with that tag. I find this functionality very useful.

At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has reduced the challenges to some extent, as we can now utilize OCR if the normal method doesn't work. Nevertheless, there is still significant potential for improvement in TestComplete's ability to identify various object elements.

I don't have any specific concerns to mention. I have observed significant improvements in TestComplete over the past few years, especially in its support for highly dynamic object elements used in products like Salesforce Dynamics 365. In earlier versions, there were numerous challenges, but the current version is far superior to its predecessors.

I've been involved with this solution in my current project for the past six months. Prior to this, I worked on a different project three years ago, where I spent one year working on it.

It is an extremely stable solution. We haven't experienced any significant issues or security incidents. I would rate its stability as a nine, indicating that there are no issues.

In terms of scalability, I would rate it a ten. There are no problems related to memory or any other aspect as long as you include the appropriate test cases and execute them. We've incorporated additional projects without encountering any scalability issues.

I would give their customer support a perfect rating of ten. We have a good rapport with the team, and they provide immediate responses. Additionally, I recently took part in a networking event they organized, which further demonstrates their excellent support.

Positive

The initial setup has significant scope for improvement, especially in supporting additional file types and in the area of data comparison. This is why I've rated it as seven out of ten. Certainly, the deployment process involves utilizing an interface pipeline in Azure DevOps that triggers when a new build is available. The TestComplete suite runs in the cloud, generating test results. 

If all scenarios pass, the deployment progresses automatically to other environments like UAT and, if successful there, to production. In case of failure, minimal intervention is required, and the issue is quickly assessed to determine if it impacts the deployment. Critical issues are addressed before further deployment, while minor issues are dealt with internally before proceeding to other environments.

I highly recommend TestComplete to other users. From an organizational standpoint, writing all the automation scripts can be time-consuming, and when the key person responsible for them departs, it's challenging to find someone who can understand and work with the code. TestComplete offers codeless automation, making it accessible for anyone to learn quickly. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten for its overall features and the support it provides in various aspects.

I used it for a pilot project, primarily focusing on conducting a POC. Our use case involves active forms within the NetLion application. Specifically, we initiate the network planning application to create a flight in a desktop environment. The objective is to automate this process. Once the flight is generated, we aim to store its corresponding flight number, possibly in an Excel sheet.

It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing.

One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git. Additionally, navigating various functions within the TestComplete suite may not be as user-friendly. I've encountered specific challenges, such as playback issues with recorded scripts and inconsistent failure messages when running the same script.

The product lacks stability in my experience. I have experimented with various tools, and based on my observations, it is evident that there is room for improvement and evolution.

Given the complexity of the application landscape and the intricacies of the team, the company should evolve to better address scalability needs.

We reached out to technical support, but unfortunately, their response was lacking. This highlights another area that requires improvement – the overall quality of support is inadequate.

The initial setup posed certain challenges.

After installing it with the installation wizard and obtaining a single-sheet license from the manager, I faced difficulties when others attempted to reuse the same license on their machines. Despite uninstalling the application from my machine, it persisted in indicating that someone else still used the license.

There are certain challenges related to the license management system in place. It comes with a high cost. An annual price is around four thousand five hundred plus per user, whereas UiPath is only three thousand UAN rate hundred per user per year.

The UI aspect of UiPath is more advantageous as it offers various features, including built-in traits and multiple packages, making it easier to develop. It is a low-code platform, which adds to its appeal.

I wouldn't strongly recommend it. Overall, I would rate it six out of ten.

At the moment, our focus is automation and API contract validation. We are looking for tools that focus on delivering the aforementioned functionalities rather than more generic ones.

In the future releases of SmartBear TestComplete, I think the integration towards Jira could be useful. Reporting and working with test managers is important to me without getting into too specific details. A solution needs to generate and shift through data results while improving reporting and automated reporting of errors to make it simpler. I want the solution to be more usable since someone with much to do can't afford to take very long on reporting. SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra.

I have been using SmartBear TestComplete for more than a year.

The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us. It's mostly more around what we are looking for, potentially in other solutions that would enable us to focus on some other areas of testing where we see that there might be a benefit to get improvements.

Speaking about whether I am satisfied with the product or not, I can say that we have faced challenges that SmartBear TestComplete doesn't resolve, but I think we need other tools, especially around API layer testing, and that is what we're looking into at the moment.

We are not particularly switching from SmartBear TestComplete to some other solution. I am just looking for other tools. We are not switching to other solutions since we have been using SmartBear TestComplete for a long time, and we have invested time, money, resource, skill training, and all of such things. We are not necessarily going to switch to some other solution on a whim. From my perspective, I came into my company's project relatively early, so I think it's a good time to start looking at other areas and potentially other tools that would allow us to expand in areas where we currently either don't have the absolute right tool for the job or could do better. It is important to consider that every tool has its own limitations, and hence some research needs to be done. To be honest, I have only just started, and I haven't had enough time to go deep enough into the details of it.

Overall, I rate the product six out of ten.

We use it primarily for regression testing and covering parts of the regression test suite that aren't yet automated. We're also automating manual test cases.

We currently have our version running in Azure DevOps and are using the TestComplete Azure DevOps extension. This allows us to integrate TestComplete into our Azure DevOps pipeline and create a daily trigger. We've also set up Microsoft Teams notifications from Azure DevOps. So, basically, we get daily reports on our regression testing.

TestComplete's support for various scripting languages positively impacts our testing strategies. For example, our team uses Java, and TestComplete works well with that environment, so it's been very good.

The record and playback functionality have been most valuable in our hands-on test automation efforts. It makes it easier to script and create automated tests.

TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.

Headless testing would be a big improvement. For example, when we run our regression suite, we need to start a virtual machine and run the tests interactively. There isn't a way to run the tests headlessly without logging into the virtual machine. That's the one feature I think would really take TestComplete to the next level.

Another feature that would be a valuable addition is that instead of generating MHT files when you enter an incident in Azure DevOps, they should have a way to generate something like an HTML file. MHT files are an outdated technology that requires Internet Explorer to open. With current technologies and Microsoft's updates to Edge, you can end up with MHT files that you can't open. That's a feature they could improve upon.

Each tool has its own way of generating reports. Maybe if you go open source with something like the Allure Report and add an Allure Report extension to Azure DevOps, that would provide clearer and nicer reports. I know TestComplete has its own way of implementing alerts, but the issue is that you don't see the screenshots in Allure report when you use it.

I have been using it for over a year. 

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. Since it's a testing tool, there are times when you want to run tests without directly interacting with the machine. In these cases, you need to have TestComplete open to initiate the tests. If they implemented a headless testing feature, it would be much more convenient.

We do have support, and we contact them when needed.

It's good. They respond quickly.

Positive

I used Selenium. 

It was very easy to implement. We were able to link TestComplete with our Azure DevOps pipelines. Only TestComplete has that feature. Otherwise, if we wanted to integrate with Azure Test Plans, we'd have to change our framework from Visual Studio and Selenium to TestComplete.

The integration is very good. TestComplete integrated well within our existing environment. We're able to integrate it into our CI/CD pipelines easily.

The deployment was about two weeks. A different person handled the implementation. It was just one of our DevOps engineers who handled the setup and configurations. It doesn't require a large team.

We have an organizational license, and based on the number of projects using TestComplete, there's definitely been a return on investment.

It's comparable to other similar tools, perhaps a bit less expensive than some of its competitors.

So, the pricing is pretty reasonable. 

We evaluated other options. We opted for TestComplete because of the price and ease of use. 

I would recommend it. However, I don't think I'd recommend TestComplete for companies heavily focused on AI-driven testing. I don't think it has robust capabilities in that area yet, though that may change in future releases.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I used SmartBear TestComplete to record my entire script. Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete and TestProject.

The current price of SmartBear TestComplete is an area of concern. The price of SmartBear TestComplete needs to be lowered in the future since competition in the market is very high. Some companies also provide automation tools for free, so SmartBear TestComplete should consider improving its areas attached to costing or pricing while incorporating the latest technologies. I could not connect to BrowserStack with SmartBear TestComplete, whereas I could connect to BrowserStack with TestProject.

I have experience with SmartBear TestComplete for around a week.

It is a stable solution. I can't speak much about the stability of the solution since I could hardly use it.

It is a scalable solution.

There were around ten users of the solution in my company.

I have had a poor experience with SmartBear TestComplete's technical support team. SmartBear TestComplete's technical support team couldn't answer my queries, and moreover, they were not even reachable. Considering the aforementioned issues, my company decided to use TestProject over SmartBear TestComplete .

Before SmartBear TestComplete, my company was using Selenium. My company switched from Selenium to SmartBear TestComplete since we were looking for an automation tool.

The initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete was complex.

SmartBear TestComplete's deployment phase took 15 minutes.

There is no specific requirement for a technical team to take care of the deployment phase of SmartBear TestComplete since the solution is easy to deploy.

My company did not seek the help of a consultant or an integrator for the solution's deployment phase. It was easy to install.

I have not seen any return on investment from the use of SmartBear TestComplete in my company.

SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool.

The licensing fees attached to the solution can be considered as expensive. In the AI era, SmartBear TestComplete charges a lot of money from its users for the automation functionalities it provides. In the future, my company plans to use Selenium and stop the use of SmartBear TestComplete.

After some research, my company specifically chose three tools, which were SmartBear TestComplete, TestProject, and Katalon Studio. From SmartBear TestComplete, TestProject, and Katalon Studio, my company chose TestProject. In the future, my company may again switch to Selenium from TestProject to reduce costs. Selenium is an open-source product, allowing my company to use it for free.

I would not recommend the solution to those who plan to use it.

I rate the overall product a seven out of ten.

I use the company solution to automate some of the applications in our company. The product is used in the IT industry.

The product's best feature for automating tests is its record feature. Normally, users have to write feature files manually. With SmartBear TestComplete in our company, we can record and add or edit a few codes. The aforementioned area consists of details regarding the most effective feature offered by the product. The UI that the product offers its users to work with is also one of the main advantages offered by the product.

In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the product. Based on what our company spoke with SmartBear TestComplete, I can say that SmartBear is working on resolving the issues related to the product.

I have been using SmartBear TestComplete for a year. My company has been a customer of the product.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I don't see any issues with the scalability part of the tool. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

There are three users of the tool in my company.

There is no need to increase the usage of the product in our company.

The solution's technical support is good. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

The product's initial setup phase was easy. I rate the product's initial setup phase a nine out of ten, where ten means it offers an easy setup process.

SmartBear TestComplete is a standalone product that runs with the help of VMs.

The solution's setup phase takes an hour. My company has not dealt with the deployment process related to the product, and we are mostly running it, though we don't have a CI/CD environment at the moment. The tool's installation phase takes around an hour or two.

The product has been able to save cost and time for my company.

My company does not buy the product. It is our company's customers who require the solution.

Speaking about the scripting flexibility that the product provides, I would say that users don't need to write all the scripts manually. As users, we don't need to know a lot of programming since SmartBear TestComplete serves as a low-code and no-code tool. With minimum development knowledge, one can use the tool. One may need the development knowledge for certain advanced things, but more or less, anyone can easily use the product's automation.

The tool supports AI-driven testing scenarios. The product suggests to its users that during automation, we have to catch UI elements, which is actually an easy process.

Speaking about the product's integration capabilities, I would say that we are not using any CI/CD pipelines at the moment. Integration is completely different when it comes to SmartBear TestComplete. In the future, some companies hope to integrate MartBear TestComplete with Jenkins.

SmartBear TestComplete is a good tool for application automation. The tool can be used without much experience in the development area. The product can be described as a low-code and no-code tool.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

If you have behavior automation and need to use it more for the behavior framework, this is one of the best solutions to record and play.

It's a good tool to use and is very easy to learn.

The product has many features. So many that I have not explored them all.

The consistency of the solution is excellent. 

You can record and play very easily. You can record actions and execute test cases again and again. There's a 90% accuracy with the recordings.

It has an easy initial setup.

The pricing is the constraint. 

They don't have any smart features for data-driven testing. The test data-driven framework should be more explanatory, and it should be more advanced.

For example, if I want to evaluate some of the web applications, which have a lot of test data entries, and I want to put my data from Excel or that kind of integration. Maybe it has that feature but not a smart feature. In my previous experience, I have used some smart tools with very smooth features. If they could add a data-driven testing feature, it would be ideal.

I've been using the solution for one year.

It's pretty stable. We find it to be reliable. The performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

I've never experimented with scaling. I'm the only tester in my team using it. I can't say that we have plans to increase usage.

During the initial setup, I faced issues. That may be due to the fact that I had not been through the documents. Some of the features weren't that self-explanatory to me, either. I was facing issues when I was running my test cases. Therefore, I have connected with them. I created incidents, and they were able to help me with that. That said, customer support is not that great, to be very honest.

Most of the customer support people are in Ukraine. Due to the conditions there, they haven't been able to help as much.

Neutral

I'm also familiar with Tosca. I chose to use this solution.

Tosca is for a mid-company or a large company tool. Tosca was way too advanced a tool for the kind of testing I wanted to do. I did my POC for Eggplant and Katalon.

For our budget, this was the best option.

The solution has a simple setup. It's not overly complex. 

Implementation doesn't take too long. It might take about two to three hours in general to deploy.

TestComplete has a platform, and then you have to buy modules. Overall, for us, the cost of the TestComplete platform and the three extra modules is around $8,000.

I'm a customer and end-user.

You can buy either cloud or on-premises versions. 

If a user is testing behavioral actions, then SmartBear is a very good product to go to. However, if you have to do extreme test data testing and it's a big scenario, and it is a lot of evaluation and test data dependency, then I would not recommend this tool.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We mainly use the solution for test automation. 

The programming capability, as well as the record and play, make the solution very easy to use.

The way that it's licensed is also quite attractive. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward and simple. 

It's scalable. 

It has a very good run time.

The solution is mainly stable. 

The integration tools could be better. It would be useful if we could use it with other test management tools.

We'd like to see the solution add a few more features to the offering.

I've used the solution for more than five years. 

By and large, it is a stable product. There may be some bug fixes needed here or there. however, for the most part, it's fine. 

The solution is scalable. 

We aren't a very big company. Maybe 20 people are using the solution. Most of them are test automation engineers.

Technical support is average. It's not bad, nor is it outstanding. 

Neutral

I did not previously use a different solution. 

The company does, however, also use IBM tools. 

It is an easy solution to set up. The deployment takes minutes. It's very fast to set up.

We only need one person to maintain the solution. 

Our own team handled the implementation. We didn't need any outside assistance from integrators or consultants. 

The solution is around $1500. Some are perpetual licenses, and some get a yearly report card. 

Our team occasionally does test other options. 

We had some sort of partnership with the product.

I'm not sure which version we're using. The version we're using is likely two years old. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. 

Positive