SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

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'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.

I found the Keyword Test feature very valuable. Even with my limited programming knowledge, I was able to create automation tests using the Keyword Test feature. Also, the ability to create image based tests was extremely helpful, especially when automating tests for mobile devices.

TestComplete has enabled us to automate a lot of our tests for Android devices.

I've used it for three months.

I would rate it 10/10. Every time I had a question or issue I couldn’t figure out, they were right there to help.

Set-up was pretty straightforward.

We implemented it through an in-house team.

To me, the Object Browser has proven to be the most valuable feature of this product. This tab (and its associated tools) allows the test developer to locate objects within the application to be tested, and retrieve properties and methods that can be used in scripting. This saves a significant amount of time over referring to the application source code for such information. It also makes use of the recording feature periodically to rough out scripts for new tests. The recorded scripts are very fragile, but they can provide a good base for writing stable scripts.

While our test automation initiative is still in its early stages, TestComplete is allowing us to script and run complex business process tests against our desktop applications. Being able to create smaller modules that can be referenced by other scripts or keyword tests allows for a flexible and easy to maintain test suite.

A major part of the product that needs improvement is the licenser. This piece of the application is known to have issues installing that requires manual, command-line modifications to correct. While this doesn’t occur with all installations, it has been a frequent problem for me. The larger issue with the licenser is that it is incompatible with virtual machines. The applications themselves will run on physical or virtual machines, but they must call out to a physical server which controls the licenses for them.

The latest version of TestComplete has introduced support for Git, but my initial impression is that it still needs some work before it can replace my VCS tool.

The product has been in use at the company for about two years and I have been actively using it for about 8 months.

I haven’t experienced issues that I would attribute directly to the application. There have been some issues with timing and other common problems, but many of those have been corrected through modifications to the tests and the environment.

My experience with their technical support has been less than satisfactory, but all of my issues were resolved. Of the technicians I have worked with, two of them were very knowledgeable and one of them did little more than email knowledge base articles that had been ruled out in the original issue report. The latter tech had the additional problem of being about 12 hours out of sync so a full day was lost with every email exchange. I received prompt responses and quick resolutions from both of the knowledgeable technicians I have dealt with although one of them was rather gruff and left me feeling like I was bothering her. Overall, SmartBear needs to work on their customer service and technical support.

This application did not replace a previous automation effort.

When deploying new installations of TestComplete, I ran into multiple issues with the licensing engine. The first time I experienced the problem, I contacted support and was directed to a knowledge base article (which I had been unable to find while searching for the error message). I have since bookmarked the article and reference each time I need to do a new install. Once the licenser has installed properly, the configuration and licensing goes smoothly.

The implementation was performed in-house, and was quite easy despite the issues with the licenser. The best advice I can offer would be to plan out your testing environment and requirements before you begin. If you plan to use virtual machines for your test systems, make sure you also have a physical box to run the licenser that is dedicated to the lab. Do not attempt to use someone’s PC as it may not always be available when the test machine are trying to run.

We have not performed an ROI analysis.

SmartBear’s product licenses are reasonably priced and generally in line with similar companies and products.

I reviewed several products before deciding to continue our automation efforts using TestComplete. Among the products reviewed were Telerik TestStudio, Testing Anywhere, and Ranorex.

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.

The most valuable feature is the ability for a non-developer to develop intelligent, robust, data-driven tests.

TestComplete has greatly improved our organization functions by allowing us to develop, manage, and execute many forms of testing in one central repository. Being able to develop, manage, and execute JUnit, NUnit, PHPUnit, PyUnit, Selenium, functional, and nonfunctional tests has given our company great insight as to the health of our testing efforts.

I have used this solution for four years.

No issues.

No issues.

The level of technical support leaves a lot to be desired. The only way to get support is via email, therefore problems that could take a matter of minutes to solve by phone or web conference can sometimes take several days.

We previously used IBM Rational Functional Tester, Segue/Borland/Micro Focus SilkTest, HPE Mercury Quick Test Professional, and IBM Rational Robot.

We switched because of the ability for a non-developer to develop intelligent, robust, data-driven tests.

The initial setup was very straightforward and took very little time.

No advice. I did not deal with the licensing and pricing.

I did compare the tool to IBM Rational Functional Tester, Segue/Borland/Micro Focus SilkTest, and HPE Mercury Quick Test Professional.

TestComplete is a great product. It is a perfect fit for an organization that has a hard time finding testers with a development background and want to centralize the development, management, and execution of their tests.

It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems.

TestComplete replaced QTP as the preferred choice of tool for the organization. It is much faster, works better across technologies (esp. Flex based UI) and is better compatible with newer technologies directly out of the box. We could have our automation engineers create tests more easily. Also, we were able to set-up lab machines to enable distributed runs for more applications in a shared environment.

The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools like Notepad++. Performance is another aspect which can be improved.

I've used it for one and a half years.

TestComplete was fairly easy to scale once we had the licenses in place for the organization.

We used tech support for some specific third-party grids we had to automate. The support was average and we ended up creating our own automation solution for that piece of automation.

We previously used QTP, and later moved to TestComplete as it provided more out of the box support for newer technologies like Flex and AIR.

Initial setup was very straightforward. We did face some hiccups in license procurement however, once licenses were procured the process from there was quite smooth.

We had a mixed team. The implementation was smooth overall and requires a few skilled automation experts to oversee the transition/initial implementation.

We achieved ROI in eight months from the start of implementation. Get a good automation architect to implement a good ROI directed framework. It is very easy to lose direction during a mmigration.

• QTP
• Selenium

The features of TestComplete that were most valuable to me were:

• The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)
• The ability to create test scripts that were easy to modify;
• The ability to easily review a log of software errors, if any

It would have been a huge task to have to run the test scripts manually, probably 12 hours straight. We were able to run tests on daily promotions of software so all software was tested every night, making any bugs instantly visible the next morning. It gave us quick confirmation that software changes worked, and without breaking any existing software.

We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses. This was because sometimes the Windows PC feeding the scanner script data was faster than the scanner could process it, so we had to constantly tweek the wait times so the script wouldn’t bomb out. I have since used software with a “wait for” function that would wait for a response, but if TestComplete did, we didn’t know about it.

One of the main reasons I was hired was to use TestComplete with green screen applications, which was possible, but not easy. You had to know the exact column and row position of every text line on the screen so you could verify the string being tested and analyze exactly where and what the response would be.

I used TestComplete as a QA Automation consultant for about six months.

No

No

No

We never needed customer service.

We never needed technical support.

Nothing previous to TestComplete.

That happened before I was hired, so I don't know.

TestComplete was implemented with the help of contract software developers who created the test scripts, which was invaluable to be able to use it for testing, and to use them as templates so we could copy and modify to make new scripts.

unknown.

unknown.

TestComplete was installed before I was hired, so I know nothing about this.