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.

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.

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.

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. 

We primarily use the solution for our automating our test scripts.

The record and replay aspects of the solution are quite useful for people. With them, you don't have to write any scripts. Basically, you can record your actions and play them back later.

The initial setup is very easy.

Right now, the product only supports Windows. We'd like to see it work with other operating systems as well. They should definitely be working with iOS, for example. That should just be a given.

The product is quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is quite good. If a company would like to expand it, it can do so. 

Technical support is excellent. If you reach out to them, they will get back to you within 24 hours. 

Positive

The implementation process is hassle-free. I'd rate it a five out of five in terms of ease of installation. It's a very simple process. 

The amount of maintenance needed probably depends upon your project and the number of test scripts you have. It is based on the complexity of your application. If it is straightforward, one person can manage it once it is automated. A larger amount of scripts may require a bit more maintenance, however, something that is low to medium is easy to handle. 

While it's my understanding that clients don't seem bothered by the pricing, I can't speak to the actual cost of the product. That said, it is, as far as I know, competitive in the market.

I'm a reseller. I'm not coming from any organization as a consumer who is consuming TestComplete features. Actually, I'm a solution architect who is demonstrating the features of the tool to others.

While I tend to look at client requirements before recommending any solution if it did fit in with a client's need I would definitely recommend the product. It's very reliable. 

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. While there are some gaps, we've been mostly happy with its capabilities. 

The most valuable features of the SmartBear TestComplete are self-healing, they reduce the maintenance required. The different languages SmartBear TestComplete supports are good because some of our libraries are written in Python, JavaScript, and C#. It's very easy to put them all under one project and use them. The are other features that SmartBear TestComplete has but the competition widely has them as well.

In SmartBear TestComplete the integration with Jenkins could be easier. Additionally, some of the controls could have better customization options. For example, if a grid is used and it contains multiple controls within it, it can be a checkbox, radio button, or any kind of control, the way the Object Spy is operating currently there is a lot of room for improvement.

There are a lot of improvements that are required on the Object Spy, such as how we find the locators. That is a feature which I would love to see. 

It is currently very tightly coupled to the SmartBear ID. There should be a way that they could support the integration with external libraries and make it flexible to integrate with open-source frameworks. This would be a good option to add.

I have been using SmartBear TestComplete for approximately eight years.

SmartBear TestComplete is a stable solution.

When it comes to customization controls the scalability of SmartBear TestComplete is limited. However, the assets are scalable. It's easy to scale across the solutions within the same limited functionality.

The technical support from SmartBear TestComplete is good.

The initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete is easy. The process is almost instant, it is very easy.

The price of SmartBear TestComplete could be less. The main challenge is when it comes to node-locked. They should use a subscription model, such as a monthly-based subscription or, a quarterly-based subscription. Their floating license is very expensive, and this high price should be reduced or provide, at a minimum, a subscription model.

When it comes to automation, the fundamental aspects are the stabilization factor, how easy it is to automate, how much is the coverage, and how much are you able to cover with respect to an application. There will be always areas that cannot be automated. The coverage, stabilization, and ease to automate are the areas that have to be improved. The better the pricing and improved pricing models, the more it will attract more customers. 

I rate SmartBear TestComplete a seven out of ten.

I work as a tester for a company.

I use TestComplete in SmartBear and the open-source version of SoapUI.

We use TestComplete for our regression test case distribution.

For Windows application automation, we use TestComplete, and for API automation, we use SoapUI. When compared to TestComple, I find SoapUI to be extremely useful.

TestComplete is extremely efficient when it comes to scripting. In a single day, you can automate more than 100 test cases. If you write the code, Selenium allows you to automate only 10 to 15 cases.

When compared to other tools, it is very simple.

When we try to automate and keep the same script in a few cases, it fails due to control changes. You must have a session open when running in TestComplete, otherwise, your script will fail.

When compared to the competitors, it is a little more complicated.

During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly.

Our frequency control IDs are getting changed. For example, if I develop a script in one mission and then try to deploy the same script in another mission, the script will not be executed properly.

Selenium is more efficient than TestComplete at the point of execution, in my experience.

In terms of execution, attempting to run a script from multiple missions will result in the script being deployed and failing to work in some of the missions.

It would be beneficial if they provided a new open-source library that could be integrated with Selenium. Currently, we must create Java bridge libraries in order to integrate with Selenium. It would be preferable to have a simple APA for consuming the Selenium feature console.

I have been working with SmartBear TestComplete for two years.

We've also phased TestComplete, a slightly lower version, and are looking into TestComplete 14, using the trial version.

This solution is used by myself and two other members of the same team.

I have not contacted technical support because I am using the trial version.

The initial setup is very easy.

We have a TestComplete 12 license.

I would rate SmartBear TestComplete a six out of ten.

It is useful for functional testing, testing backend database, and frontend user interface.

I am using the latest version.

It is very easy to maintain tests with this tool. It covers all necessary items in the test plan. The most painful item in testing is maintenance. When changes occur, the tests should be maintained.

It is a very easy-to-use tool. You don't have to be an expert in a specific syntax. You can just use graphical logic. If needed, it also allows you to apply some code. It is very useful from all perspectives.

There could be API interfaces with this tool.

I have been using this solution for about 10 years.

It is very stable. Their tests are running fluently.

We have three testers.

I have contacted them, and I got a very fast response and solution. Their support team was very helpful. Every question was answered professionally and quickly.

The help guides are also very useful.

I had used a browser tool.

It is very easy to install. It took about one hour to deploy the tool.

I implemented it with the guidance and help of the support team. It can be done by the testing team without any help from a consultant.

It costs a few hundred per year, but I am not sure. It is not at all expensive as compared to other tools.

I would recommend this tool. You don't have to be an expert in this tool to start using it. You can start by using the help guides. It is very easy to understand how to make it work.

I would rate SmartBear TestComplete a 10 out of 10.

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.

The artificial intelligence aspect is very useful for us.

Scaling to a cloud environment is very easy.

Scriptless approaches are very flexible compared to other scriptless automation tools.

The object identification for legacy applications that are very old can still be automated by TestComplete. The object identification is very powerful.

The stability has been good in the latest versions.

Technical support is quite helpful and they have a good community you can look for answers in as well.

The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy.

We have something called Name Mapping in TestComplete it is the only Name Mapping that is available for TestComplete. If they allowed two Name Mappings, or run Name Mapping in run time, that would be ideal.

TestComplete has its own XPath Identifiers. It auto-identifies the XPath of the application. If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better. 

Code analysis would be helpful. If they could give us a code analysis feature, similar to something called Ranorex Coach (which will give us auto-suggestions of how to use certain things), that would be ideal. In Tricentis, they have a feature whenever we identify an element or automate an element, they give a unique identification element that the tool notes when we map. Here, we don't have a feature that can mention the unique object identification kind of stuff. We need to highlight it on screen and then we need to check it. 

I've used this product for more than eight years or so.  It's been a while. 

The solution is now very stable. Four or five versions previous to the latest, if I recall, in version 10 or 11, it had some issues. However, now it is highly stable. Currently, there's nothing to worry about in terms of the stability of the product.

The solution can be scaled across the cloud. It can be scaled using the automation framework.

Technical support is good. Either we can raise a technical support ticket with them, which gets answered in 24 hours or we can use the very good community that they have. Whenever we post a query, we are able to get the answer easily from the community. It's very helpful.

The installation is very simple. In just five minutes we can install it and we don't need to do any settings for resetting - such as, for example, how we do it for Selenium or other tools. We don't require much time to deploy it. In no more than five minutes it is installed and ready to go.

The price is moderate. It's not the cheapest or the most expensive if you compare it with other competitors. It's okay. 

My company is a partner of TestComplete. I am a senior test architect in our organization.

If a company has an ecosystem and they need to automate the web, desktop, or mobile, then TestComplete is the right tool. Even if they need enterprise application automation, it's very easy. On top of that, using a scriptless approach will save a lot of time. However, users are not limited to that. They can use Python, JavaScript, VBScript, or other kinds of options. You can import external Python libraries inside it, which will give additional capabilities to the tool. It's been very useful.

Overall, I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

Mainly we use the solution for when we need to install or deploying in different applications, if necessary. We use it for testing for the most part.

It's a good solution. It works in Windows Operating System.

The automation is very good.

We can test an application across many programs with ease. We can test, for example, on Internet Explorer, or Mozilla, or Google Chrome, et cetera. 

It's very helpful that, when you have a recording in one application, in one navigator, you can replay every step in different applications. You don't need to do any different testing in different programs, you only have to do one test and replicate it in different programs.

The initial setup is easy.

The solution has a very nice interface.

The one issue we have is that the tool was installed in a local machine. Now, it's more popular when you use tools that work in online environments. It would be better if it was available on the cloud. We'd like to access it on remote desktops. I don't want to have to install it on every machine.

It would be ideal if the solution could offer one subscription for time and one for life. 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. Or maybe they could offer different pricing. They need to be more flexible.

I've only used the solution for maybe one or two months at this point. It hasn't been too long. It's relatively new.

The solution is stable. We didn't run into any issues. It has been good so far.

The technical support is good. They are very responsive and helpful. We are quite satisfied with eh level of support they give us.

The initials setup is not complex at all. It's pretty straightforward. It's easy. A company shouldn't have any problems with deployment.

That said, it might be hard for a normal user. You need to do a few technical things. It helps to have a bit of knowledge on your side. Otherwise, you may run into issues.

You only need one person to set everything up.

We handled the deployment ourselves. We didn't need the assistance of an integrator or consultant.

The solution doesn't have a very flexible pricing model.

I didn't look at too many other options, however, this one had a special advantage in that it works on the Windows Operating System.

We're just customers and end-users.

I'd advise new users to take a look at what they need. They need to know if they need something that can test on desktop or on mobile, et cetera. This is a good solution if you need something that works with Windows, for example.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.