SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

We use TestComplete for automation and functional testing — for support in the CI/CD pipeline. We also use it for cognitive solution application testing.

The ease-of-use and quality of the overall product are above average.

In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical. Overall, The internal customer feedback is above average.

I have used TestComplete for almost one year.

TestComplete is both scalable and stable.

Deploying TestComplete was very easy.

The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower.

Currently, we are not looking at any competition or changing or anything else.

Price-wise, feature-wise, its ability to integrate with other products, and of course, scalability-wise, it's great. I would absolutely recommend TestComplete to others. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give TestComplete a rating of seven.

I used this solution mostly for a proof of concept. We have a lot of desktop applications with a lot of engines and customized framework. I used this solution to prove that it can interact with some old desktop applications or customized framework, where any other tool would not fit. 

It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. 

I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows.

I didn't use it very heavily. One issue that I found was that there wasn't a quick way or a button to move Visual Basic scripts to TestComplete. We have a lot of such scripts in our organization, and it would be very useful to have some option to easily move these scripts. It is currently possible to convert these scripts to TestComplete, but it is not easy. I have to write some code, but everything is not available immediately.

I have been using this solution for maybe one year. 

It is very stable and easy going.

I didn't come to that point. In my department, we had two users. 

I didn't contact them.

The initial setup was very straightforward. I have a lot of experience and knowledge. Therefore, it was very easy for me to switch to TestComplete, but I am not sure about a new person.

I would definitely recommend this solution. I would rate SmartBear TestComplete an eight out of ten.

The primary use is to run regression tests on a call accounting system as a web application, which is running on a Windows operating system. The tests simulate user actions using UI and database verification.

The solution has saved a lot of human resources by running full regression tests prior to each release. In addition, during the years, many major bugs have been detected by the tool, and it has saved us the big expense of fixing problems after a release. Our confidence with the tool increased as releases were performed successfully, without any rejections from the field.

The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find. In addition, verification of UI items in all screens is also important task that consumes too
much manual resources.

Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work.

Eleven years.

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.

No issues.

Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional.

We did not have a previous solution.

The initial setup was straight forward. No issues at all during the setup stage.

The implementation was in-house.

Our ROI is about $10,000 a year.

The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive.

We did not evaluate other solutions.

TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool. It offers credibility and value for the money. A basic license is roughly $4,000 and you can add flexible components on top of it. 

If you want desktop testing, you can add-on a desktop license. If you want web testing, you're going to want to add-on a web license — there's a lot of flexibility, you just need to pay for what you use. There are no irritating subscription models.

People are able to quickly use the platform and with a variety of scripting languages, including Python and JavaScript — all the modern scripting languages are supported. It doesn't just rely on VB script like UFT.

It's very flexible and robust in that way. I have seen many of our clients quickly adopting the tool with all the scripting languages. 

Recently, they've been building a lot of futuristic features, for example, AI Self-healing is one of the interesting features where they try to improve and cut down on maintenance by automatically correcting the arbiter. That's a really cool feature for keeping your object repositories up to date, and it can considerably bring down or control your maintenance costs to some extent, at least as far as the object repository goes.

They also have some intelligent OCR features. They have a mini device cloud, for example, which allows you to run a testing tool and recently started supporting X spot. That actually goes well with selenium. You can reuse some of the scripts with other frameworks. They also acquired CucumberStudio a few years back. They have combined HipTest and Cucumber into one capability — CucumberStudio —, which is a great integration to TestComplete, that really becomes very seamless.

They're working on many features. Of course, the roadmap is not news to me, but yes, of course, they are working on different features.

I have been using this solution for many years.

We have not faced any concerns with respect to the stability of the tool; at least we have not seen any major issues with the tool where it malfunctions or anything, never.

It is a scalable solution. The beauty of TestComplete is that it's not tied to one scripting language. All the different scripting languages come with different abilities. You have different types of metrics and controls available with different scripting languages. That way we can drive our own framework. You can create many custom frameworks using TestComplete that will suit your organization. That's what we have been doing with many companies — it's an all-in-one solution.

The technical support is excellent. We don't deal with them directly, but the feedback that I have received from different clients is that it's really excellent. They are always attentive —  That's a feeling I've always got from different clients.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. There's a good license server map for all those things — it's a fairly straightforward solution.

The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000.

We do a lot of consulting and training services for SmartBear. We try to educate the users in terms of the new features available in TestComplete so that they can do some smart automation. It's not just for automating some scenarios, you can optimize a lot of your effort.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine.

The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules.

The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced.

I would like the ability to automatically distribute web applications to all of the concurrent users.

We have been using TestComplete for the past two years. 

The stability is good.

The technical support is quite good.

The initial setup is not too straightforward and not too complex. I would say that it's okay.

The price varies depending on the plan that you choose. The option we chose was around $2,000 USD.

I am currently investigating the differences between TestComplete and TestLeft.

TestComplete is a good product compared to other options that are on the market.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We have what we call a UK tax related application. We are using the solution to automate some functional cases of the application. Use case wise, it's usually used more on the accounting side, which is the main purpose of the application. With the available functional testing of workflows, we are able to have accountability there.

The solution's most valuable aspect is how easy it is to create tests. For example, recording options.

The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup.

We can easily create test suites without much trouble. For example, by using the UFP test, we can directly create a test suite. 

The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools.

I have three or four months of experience on the solution. I am an architect on technical optics. Different teams work on the project as well. I mentor them sometimes as part of my job. As far as hands-on experience goes, I can say I've only actually been using it for a few months. It hasn't been more than that.

Our company as a whole, on the other hand, has been using the solution for the better part of four or five years now.

We haven't had any problems with stability. It's reliable. We haven't witnessed any bugs or glitches. It doesn't seem to crash on us or to freeze.

The solution is scalable. There are no issues in that sense. If a company needs to expand out the solution they can do so easily. We can add as many artifacts as we want.

I'm not sure if we have plans to increase usage in the future.

I've never used technical support, so I can't speak to how good technical support is.

The initial set up was not complex. I can say it's straightforward due to the fact that we have started out relatively small. We have gradually developed it. We continue to build it out all the time. That made it simple. This was important for us, as our team didn't have too much experience with the solution. 

The deployment was handled by my IT team. I did not handle the deployment personally.

The implementation was handled in house by our own teams.

The pricing is reasonable. It's not too expensive as a solution. We're satisfied with the billing so far.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

If you compare it with competitors, the object identification needs to be improved. It also needs to ensure that going forward it supports new technologies. We are seeing a lot of new technologies coming up. It's important that test companies support these new advancements. If they do, then it will give testers a reason to try them out and hopefully adopt the solution. It's a win-win.

The solution is also great for language flexibility. It's important to support a number of languages to help increase user adoption.

I'd recommend this solution to other organizations. It's one of three I'd recommend for sure based on the pricing and feature offering it has. Of course, this is just a recommendation n terms of a commercial tool. Open-source tool recommendations are a whole other question.

I'm currently are trying to apply it to our software application.

We use it for testing Windows applications for CUTE, based on the CUTE framework. For now, that's all we use it for because Complete does not suggest any other options that are appropriate for us. By that, I mean it doesn't seem to work with Mac OS, Android OS, and iOS.

I only have experience with Windows, so I find all the best features are for that operating system.

Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well.

The solution has a great feature called macro recording. With it, I can make it into a macro in a few of the languages Complete suggests. This is really useful for me, personally.

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.

Right now, Complete can test only on native Android and native iOS applications.

I've been using the solution for about a month. 

This tool is quite stable. I had only one crash, and I sent a report for this crash to technical support. Everything else seems to work perfectly. Aside from the one issue, we haven't had any other problems.

I don't have any experience, unfortunately, with scalability. We use just one instance on one machine so I've never attempted to scale the solution. There's just one user on the platform right now.

I am not sure if our organization will extend its usage in the future. We have a strong need to make this work on other platforms. We may switch to a different tool.

I do have some experience with technical support. I've found a few answers to my issues on Smart BF5. I've also had assistance with the support engineers. So far, I've been satisfied with the level of support I have been able to receive. 

I have used other solutions, including ALTA. It has good UI, but I don't know if you are really able to directly compare it to this solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. We found it simple and not too complex. Our team didn't run into any issues.

For us, deployment took two to three days.

We didn't use an integrator, reseller or consultant for the deployment. We handled the entire process ourselves.

I'm not sure if there are licensing costs involved in the solution. We simply bought the product outright and started using it.

I'm currently working with the latest version of the solution.

My advice to others is to just decide if this tool is usable for your requirements. I spent a lot of time developing some tests, but then I understood that we actually needed more platforms. That's why we will switch to another tool. That's also why it's important to check your organization's requirements. Otherwise, like us, you may need to switch.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution in our data center as an application.

The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing.

The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation. 

Some sort of troubleshooting portal should be available for users.

The solution could be faster. It would be good to increase the reusability of the code so that rerun time can be saved. It would be ideal to be able to run multiple scenarios at the same time.

Right now, in terms of recording and scripting the solution is not user-friendly. They need to improve on this.

I've been using the solution for one and a half years.

The stability needs a bit of improvement. On the open-source version, you're not really able to check stability like you can on the paid version.

The solution is definitely scalable. We have about ten licenses. We may increase usage in the future.

Technical support could be better. The exact solutions we need should be provided in a more timely manner.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

The initial setup was straightforward. It's a straightforward installation. Deployment took about half a day.

We handled the implementation ourselves.

The solution is pretty good. Other options to use are TestComplete, and, for negative scenarios, Katalon Studios.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution to automate the user interface.

The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers.

The most valuable features are the script recording and the object spy. The solution has the ability to structure text well using different modules.

The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS.

The solution has impressive stability.

There are some unsolved issues working with control drop downs that need to be resolved.

The initial setup is easy. You just have to click and go. It was very fast for me on my desktop, however, I cannot speak to how fast it was on the production server.

Currently, we're evaluating the product, so we have not yet bought a license.

Right now, we're in the process of evaluating this product and Squish.

I'm using the desktop version of the solution.

Right now, I'm working with TestComplete, and will compare it to another product called Squish. Once I've compared the two, I'll make recommendations to my customers and our company about whether or not to buy the complete solution.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd rate it higher if the solution offered the ability to test on Mac OS.

I use this solution for functionality testing, API testing, and performance testing.

We are moving away from this solution to use Eggplant Functional.

The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools.

The SoapUI tools are very good, as well as cross-browser capabilities.

The GUI is very good.

There is a problem with usability because the speed decreases, which could be an issue with scalability because of too many hits on the site. It depends on how distributed their systems are, and how well they can handle multiple connections.

The artificial intelligence needs to be improved.

I have been using this solution for between six and twelve months.

This is a good product in terms of stability.

The technical support for this solution is always available. They have an online chat that is quick.

The initial setup of this solution was quite smooth. It was not complicated and within a week it was working. It did not take long.

We performed the implementation in-house.

This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team.

We have also been using Eggplant Functional, and the decision has been made to move forward with that solution, instead of SmartBear. It is not for technical reasons. I also find Eggplant to be a little bit pricey.

This product is quite mature, able to compete with other products in the market, and I would highly recommend it. Overall, we're very pleased with the implementation.

My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is to do a PoC and try this solution out. They can always reach out to me for help, and I can assist.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this solution is that there is a lot of hard work going on behind the scenes with this tool, to make each customer's journey easier. This tool is simple to implement and easy to use. If you don't have much time to do a lot of reading then it is still easy to take each case and adopt it quickly.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.