SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

I use SmartBear TestComplete to compare different tools. I perform many of the same actions I do with UFT to gather information about which tool is better for our needs. Additionally, we use it for web application, desktop application, and mobile applications.

It saves time with efficiency and automations, similar to UFT.

The integration with various tools is important. It integrates with Cucumber and behavior-driven development tools, as well as open-source tools like Appium for mobile testing.

The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing.

I use TestComplete more than Cucumber, and it is my first experience with a SmartBear tool.

I didn't find any bugs. The solution is stable. 

TestComplete is scalable.

SmartBear has a very important company behind them, ensuring good support. I would rate their support a ten out of ten.

Positive

I have experience with UFT, which I compare with SmartBear TestComplete.

The initial setup is very easy and straightforward.

I don't have a lot of information for that. Maybe another person could.

I don't know much about the pricing, however, I think it's cheaper.

I recommend SmartBear TestComplete to anyone that needs to document their processes.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Other

• Initially support for flex/flash technologies, but since that project ended my primary use is Functional Automation against a web front-end built on AngularJS.
• I use VBScript for a majority of my tests; it is one of many language choices available when writing scripts.
• Out of the box support for desktop, mobile and web.

I am the only test engineer on the project, so time is limited in terms of automation development. Using TestComplete I was able to immediately (after installation) begin coding regression tests for available functionality.

My current suite of tests numbers in the hundreds, and each test involves several UI elements. Depending on how your organization defines a test you may call this one test or many. An example to quantify this, is as follows - Automated Build Viability (smoke test) execution:

• Number of tests = 75
• Automated Time to execute = 15 minutes
• Manual Time to execute = 360 minutes (approx.)
• Automation time saved = 345 minutes (5+ hours)
• 2300% improvement

I have substantially reduced the amount of time it takes for regression and build viability activities.

I pay for support and maintenance; having used the “support” functions through online forums, I can say there is room for improvement. I would like to have access directly to TestComplete developers as opposed to “users” who have some level of expertise with the platform.

I've used it for two years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

5/10, there are knowledgeable users in the forums, but I would like to go straight to the TestComplete staff with solution questions. That said, I have had very little need for product or development specific support.

Other tools were evaluated which supported Flex/Flash web apps, but we chose TestComplete for its rich feature set as well as Smartbear’s available suite of tools outside of Automated Testing.

It was very straightforward! You just need to install and begin, no special plugins or out of the ordinary system requirements were necessary.

We implemented it in-house. As with any automation platform, carefully planning the intended usage, understanding the technology under test and determining which features will be used are critical to success.

Given the cost was minimal, the best representation of ROI from my perspective is time saved using automated tests vs. manually execution.

My current suite of tests numbers in the hundreds, and each test involves several UI elements. Depending on how your organization defines a test you may call this one test or many. An example to quantify this, is as follows - Automated Build Viability (smoke test) execution:

• Number of tests = 75
• Automated Time to execute = 15 minutes
• Manual Time to execute = 360 minutes (approx.)
• Automation time saved = 345 minutes (5+ hours)
• 2300% improvement

Our recent purchase was a single node locked license for one user which was very inexpensive. That fit our project needs and the automation strategy. The solution resides on inexpensive laptop for development and execution.

SmartBear TestComplete is a web mobile automation solution. SmartBear TestComplete is a low-code automation tool that records and replays your user actions.

SmartBear TestComplete performs some self-healing and has a feature called OCR (optical character recognition). The solution supports JavaScript.

The learning curve of the solution's user interface is a little high for new users.

I have been using SmartBear TestComplete for three years.

We haven’t faced any issues with the solution’s stability.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

SmartBear TestComplete is a scalable solution. SmartBear TestComplete is more suited for enterprise businesses.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten for scalability.

The solution's technical support takes a longer time to respond.

Neutral

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a seven out of ten.

The solution's deployment hardly takes six to seven minutes, sometimes even less than five minutes.

The solution has sped up automation for us.

The solution's pricing is too high.

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

The solution handles application changes very well. You can add or modify your existing test cases, which is a good feature. One of the solution's major AI capabilities is self-healing, which supports my test activity. The solution's AI capability increased the accuracy of the element identifier.

I would recommend the solution to other users. Besides the cost, SmartBear TestComplete is a good solution for web and mobile.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

On-premises

I built it for a demonstration for my team and it's currently dealing with procurement as far as cost, et cetera. The demonstration deals with how the tool is easy to use for desktop and web applications and, of course, web applications on mobile devices as well. No mobile device applications yet. I was able to spend that also using the TestComplete cloud. Instead of building my own grid, I used the test Selenium cloud, which you could use selecting different platforms and different web browsers per platform and you could span them across multiple devices and that was extremely helpful. Building is the hardest part about the frameworks because there's really no right way to do it.

In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great. Because we use JavaScript, we convert to JavaScript and then we just expand it from there and that was wonderful. The easiest way to start the test case or test scenario for design purposes is to put it on record, click it and I start messing with the automation. I was very impressed because I didn't have to step out of bounds of TestComplete and that's the kind of tool I've been looking for since I've been automating.

The most useful feature is the name mapping. It allows me to not have to worry about the object's name; I just use my alias.

This affected the way my client's organization functions in several ways. Number one is the consistency of the versioning. Everyone's using the same tools, same kind of code, same kind of coding methods. In case somebody's sick or out, another team member can pick up where they left off and keep going. 

It's also great because that record feature is not for the mindless. The recording plate is not only there to help you start writing the test, it helps you as a tester or an engineer understand the business mindset of how they built the application. You have to go in yourself and click around. Then, it puts everything in code and then helps you understand. We were testing sites like pharmacies, hotels, insurance providers, and other commercial companies like PetSmart. That's where I was using it and that's where the conformity got a lot better.

I was going to say load and performance but I really didn't get a chance to get into the load and performance part of TestComplete.

I can sense there's still a little bit more room for improvement in terms of making the whole testing process easier. Because it was desktop first, it kind of focused on COTS-based testing and API's because everyone's using it at the moment.

To bring it up to a 10, I would be looking for the addition of some key functional API testing. What I mean by key is like the video streaming or a consistent flow of data being used and then how much can it handle and how much API testing can it do because that's where the load and performance comes in. The API testing is where I would see a lot more improvement.

I've been using this solution on and off for about four years. About a year in total.

I have to say that scalability is pretty sufficient for now. I'm the test architect for the company and I have eight employees under me and we are all using the solution.

I would rate my experience with tech support as 10 out of 10. I had two emails and two calls with tech support. Within five minutes, my problem was solved. They were immediately aware of what I was having difficulty with and then showed me the right way to implement the solution.

We've been using Selenium with Java and it's too hard to manage the framework because everyone's changing it because they're running it locally and then they'll put it off the grid, but locally, they're building on the machine. I incorporated a Docker and I containerized the test framework so that now, new employees can go and just install the container but then there's still that engineering mindset. They want to go out and play, so it's just hard to manage. With TestComplete it's all encapsulated in one.

The initial setup was very straightforward. I didn't experience any bugs, glitches, or crashing. I was running 16 tests at one time using half of using my grid and half using the cloud and everything was running fine. I had to test and see if TestComplete could actually go on a Selenium grid and it did.

We're still kind of in the evaluation phase. The new requirements are still in development. So we're using this time to hang up our testing environment. 

We're looking for more COTS-based tools or tool so we don't have to do as much management. We want a tool that does the management as versions up and then we just lock it down.

My advice to others is: If you're looking for speed, configuration consistency, and accuracy of tests with fantastic results, go get TestComplete. If you're starting with it, you'll see how much more you can expand on it.

On-premises

• Tests can be execute and run separately.

• Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested.

• Calls different operations through batch files.

• Has the option for combining data and is keyword driven. It helps people with less knowledge in programming to work with it.

We already have the UI smoke test and have integrated to our build system, which runs each day for multiple version of the product. This saves us a lot of time.

* Product is not stable enough and it crashes often

The application under test is a complex scientific application developed in C++ & C# and use different technologies. So when I try to do Name mapping, it sometimes hangs and have to restart Test complete

* Checking from TestComplete to TFS has issues.

I mostly try to checkin the changes with Visual studio as TestComplete hangs while you try to check in with many changes directly to TFS from Testcomplete.

* Possibility to run a part of keyword tests through TestExecute

Consider you have a keyword test with 10 individual tests. By using test execute, you can only run the main one, not the individual ones.
So I like to have the possibility of running from the 3rd test or just running the 5th one.The option is not present in TestExecute (you can do it in Test complete).

It would help if it were more stable as it sometimes hangs and crashes.

We have different version of the product and it framework/project was easily scalable and used by other projects.

We had multiple technical training sessions which were helpful and almost all the answers are in the community.

When I started at this company, they were using TestComplete.

Getting used to product did take some time.

The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP.

We had a choice with Coded UI as we developed it using C#. However, TestComplete is the preferred choice one over coded UI, as it needed to grow more as a test tool.

Get training and decide on a framework that suited for your application. It always depends on what you want to do with the tool.

It allows us to test both desktop and web applications. This is a very important feature for system integration tests, as we develop desktop applications, web applications, and a Web API using the same database.

It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing).

In fact, this is an issue regarding how to read the test log in MHT format generated by TestComplete.

We know a test log is always generated automatically by test tool after executing a test. TestComplete provides a standard IDE (Integrated Development Environment) interface for user to review the test log. We don’t have issue reviewing the test log within TestComplete regardless how big the test log is (Our test log record the test running for more than two days without stopping. The test log extension name is .tcLogs and the size of total test log is very big over 2.5 GB).

TestComplete also provides a function for the user to export the log into MHT format file via manually selecting each test log after complete a test or dynamically exporting the test log during test executing via command in test script. The MHT log file can be opened by IE. However, if the MHT file is a little big, such as >200M, the user could experience obvious performance issues. It takes a very long time for IE to open this file because IE loads all the contents into one page which could finally eat up all your system memory. I tried to find another tool to open the big MHT log file, but no luck. Even executing a small test (running for one to two hours), the MHT log file size can easily reach to 200M, if a screenshot is included, for example. Normally, each one round of our regression test runs for 30-48 hours. It is impossible for us to open the big MHT log file as the system runs out of memory and an error appears definitely after hours of waiting to just open this file by IE.

TestExecute is a small tool to just execute the test developed by TestComplete. But TestExecute only generates MHT log file rather than TCLOGS file. Obviously, we cannot open the MHT log file if it is very big. So we gave up using TestExectue and export MHT log file function in TestCompelete at all.

We have to buy six individual full license of TestComplete to run and review the test.

We have used this for nine years.

Overall, TestComplete is quite stable. But the only issue affecting me is if TestComplete is terminated unexpectedly while test is still running (such as, terminating TestComplete without stopping the test first, window restarting, or shutting down unexpectedly), user could lose all the logs.

There were no issues with scalability, but it may have a performance issue with expansion.

Technical support is excellent.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The product is becoming more and more expensive. There are two types of licenses: locked and float. Locked license save more, but can only be used in a physical machine. Float licenses can be run in virtual machines.

QTP, was very expensive when compared to TestComplete, many years ago.

This tool is very easy to use and very powerful. It has a short test development circle and good technical support. There is an expensive license, but it could save more, as testers may spend more time achieving a certain test goal if using an Open Source tool. You need to consider the testers' script experience and the company’s budget to choose the right tool.

We are using SmartBear TestComplete for automation over applications.

The most valuable feature of SmartBear TestComplete for me is the image comparison functionality. It quickly detects any changes in the UI. I appreciate the play and record type tool, and we can add our script side as well.

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. Occasionally, image comparison results in failures, possibly due to issues with resolution or font size on the server side, which can be challenging to identify.

I have used the solution for two years.

We have encountered some minor issues with stability during image comparisons, likely related to resolution or font size on the server side, but nothing significant.

The solution is fully scalable and works with web, desktop, and mobile applications.

The customer service and support are fine. We generally raise a ticket if we face any technical issues, and the support team responds and sets up calls if required.

Positive

It is easy to install and set up. A little bit of programming knowledge is beneficial if you want to write scripts, but even without programming knowledge, people can easily use it.

One person can easily install the solution.

It is good for return on investment. We do our regression with less manual effort. Once set up, only one person is needed to handle all tasks, reducing the requirement for multiple personnel.

I am not involved in pricing or licensing; our management team handles these aspects.

I rate the overall experience with SmartBear TestComplete at eight points. The AI integration, especially for image comparison, is sufficient for our requirements.

We use this solution to log into a website, do MFA authentication and to verify test cases.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment. It also frees up manual testing of sites and manual testing of any of our applications. This frees up about 40 hours a week.

This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail. In comparison, Leapwork allows us that visibility and showed us exactly where it failed more easily.

This is a stable solution.

Tech support that we have received so far is pretty good. We haven't really needed to use a lot of their tech support.

Positive

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

We evaluated both Leapwork and SmartBear, along with other automated testing solutions. Both products are really good. I like Leapwork because it is easier for people to use but the price was too high per user per year. SmartBear is easy to use as well but Leapwork is not a no-code solution, whereas SmartBear is a low-code solution.

We went with SmartBear mainly because we're also using SmartBear Swagger. We're already utilizing some of SmartBear's technology in-house and its cost per license per year is lower. That was the key factor in why we decided to go with SmartBear over LeapWork.

The advice that I would give would be to make sure you dedicate some time and resources to laying out how you want to structure the test cases first.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.