No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
10th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
4.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (3rd), AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (3rd)
SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
6th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (8th), Regression Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Digital.ai Continuous Testing is 1.4%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 5.8%, down from 5.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
SmartBear TestComplete5.8%
Digital.ai Continuous Testing1.4%
Other92.8%
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Mampi Bhattacharya - PeerSpot reviewer
Developer at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Continuous testing has accelerated daily releases and now provides faster, richer debugging insights
Digital.ai Continuous Testing could be better in certain areas, and I can share my experience-based view on what can be frustrating. One issue is device availability and queue delays during peak CI hours. Sometimes devices are busy, causing tests to queue and the pipeline to slow down unexpectedly, which is especially painful for large regression suites or tight release timelines. Improvements are needed in smarter auto-scaling of device pools and better priority-based scheduling. Additionally, execution speed variability occurs; the same test sometimes runs fast and sometimes slow, depending on device load and network latency, making results less predictable. More stable execution environments and better performance isolation per session would help. Furthermore, debugging can still be indirect; even with logs or videos, I do not fully control the device as I would with local debugging, making it hard to pause and inspect live states or reproduce edge-case issues locally. More interactive debugging and improved local reproduction tools are necessary. Cost versus usage efficiency is another area of concern, as device cloud usage can be expensive and we sometimes have idle or inefficient tests that waste money. Improvements in usage analytics and cost optimization suggestions for smart test selection to run only impacted tests are areas where I believe Digital.ai Continuous Testing could improve.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Test Lead at Emerson
Used for 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.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most useful feature for me is Mobile Studio. It has a UI where I can click on elements, and it generates a script for me. Mobile Studio can generate code from testing steps. I'm using Python with it."
"Experitest is one of the only companies to offer a real device on the cloud to perform testing, and they also provide quality documentations that help you navigate and maximize the solution."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has had a very positive impact in terms of efficiency and quality."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has positively impacted my organization with massive reductions in testing time, enabling us to cut our regression cycle from two to three days down to two to three hours, transition from weekly releases to nearly daily deployments, and reduce production defects by 30 to 50% while significantly improving debugging efficiency and overall team productivity."
"The most valuable part of Experitest is the number of real devices on which the test is run."
"I have seen a clear positive ROI after implementing Digital.ai Continuous Testing, especially in terms of time saving, faster release cycle, and improved efficiency."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has had a pretty positive impact on the organization, especially in terms of speed and reliability."
"I like the cross browser compatibility, as it saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"The solution's most valuable aspect is how easy it is to create tests."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"It helped to automate all the possible functional test cases which I previously used to do by manual testing."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"We use TestComplete to do the automation test on our product’s web UI; in total, over 500 test cases are written and the automation coverage is over 80%, which helps to reduce manual effort dramatically, and by using the same script, we can run the test on both IE and Google Chrome."
"We already have the UI smoke test and have integrated to our build system, which runs each day for multiple versions of the product and saves us a lot of time."
 

Cons

"Digital.ai Continuous Testing is a strong platform, but there are a few areas where it could be improved to make the experience even better."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing is a solid tool, but there are a few things that can be frustrating at times."
"I would also like to see more videos and descriptions that could make installation more efficient."
"I have been automating tests for many years on many things but not on mobile devices. The amount of time that I have spent on just figuring out how to use Experitest and get it to work was quite long compared to what I have been doing before. I spent the first two weeks just getting it started. It would be good to have some video explanation of how to use it on your devices and get started. Their online documentation is quite good and extensive, but it would be quite good to have some end-to-end examples demonstrated."
"The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I submit a ticket to technical support, but they often have to fix it in the next version."
"The amount of time that I have spent on just figuring out how to use Experitest and get it to work was quite long compared to what I have been doing before."
"I believe that it could be more stable. During times when something is not working, it is difficult to find the solution."
"One challenge is that the initial setup and integration with CI/CD pipelines can sometimes be a bit complex, especially for teams new to automation."
"Sometimes the app crashes during test execution based on the amount of code that is running."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"TestComplete had problems during long hours runs. In some cases it could crash without leaving any logs."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"Right now, when you buy the solution, you need to pay for one solution. You receive one set up and you install it and it's just in that one machine. It would be ideal if they could offer one subscription where you can connect to different machines with a group subscription."
"I would like to see improved language support, with Python being my first choice."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is quite fairly priced, but it really depends on your budget. It is somewhere in the mid-range of products. It is not free and it is not QGP that nearly costs a whole house. You pay for the number of users who require access to execute the tests."
"The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker."
"We make monthly payments. The cost is dependent on the number of devices we intend to support."
"TestComplete now have come up with three modules (Web, Desktop & Mobile), so based on the type of product for automation, it is adequate to purchase the required module."
"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
"It is approximately $6,000 a year."
"It comes with a high cost."
"The option we chose was around $2,000 USD."
"The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP."
"The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
899,258 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
University
16%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise19
Large Enterprise32
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker.
What needs improvement with Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
Digital.ai Continuous Testing is a solid tool, but there are a few things that can be frustrating at times. One thing I noticed is that the initial setup and configuration can feel complex, especia...
What is your primary use case for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The main use case for Digital.ai Continuous Testing has been automating test execution as part of the CI/CD pipeline, especially for ensuring builds are stable before the release. For example, I us...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I am not involved in pricing or licensing; our management team handles these aspects.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
While using SmartBear TestComplete, we are fine with the current capabilities, however, it would be beneficial to improve some performance aspects, especially the image comparison feature. Occasion...
What is your primary use case for SmartBear TestComplete?
We are using SmartBear TestComplete ( /products/smartbear-testcomplete-reviews ) for automation over applications.
 

Also Known As

Experitest Seetest, Experitest
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, American Express, Barclays, China Mobile, Citi, Cisco, McAfee
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
899,258 professionals have used our research since 2012.