SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

It allows me to invoking an application and then to browse the application. I've done some good research with TestComplete along with Google Earth.

I was part of a systems architecture team and we were looking into various kinds of automation tools. We found this solution to be the most complete tool.

More APIs could be added.

I used it for six months.

I didn't encounter any stability issues in my short tenure, although I remember invoking the application twice although there is was an instance already open.

I haven't had to use customer service.

I haven't had to use technical support.

Initial setup was easy, but implementation was a little tricky initially. I could not find any sample projects that I could use as a guide.

It's open source, so it's free.

We looked at other solutions, but this was the most complete.

It's a great tool that covers many features and is straightforward with logs.

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.

• Data driven testing using Microsoft Excel
• Viewing properties of objects using Object Spy
• Organizing test runs using the Test Items page of the project editor

For versions 8.X to 9.20.2460.7, I've been using TestComplete for about four and a half years.

It seems to crash once every two to three months.

7/10

7/10

For a node-locked license, it's pretty straightforward. For floating licenses, it's a little more complex because you have to set-up the license manager and do a little bit of configuration on the computers that use the floating licenses.

With TestComplete, I can discover bugs faster and easier than testing manually. It eliminates the need for regression testing sessions as TestComplete can be set up to test automatically overnight against each day's build from programmers.

It has saved time by eliminating the need for manual testing. It's also led to the discovery of bugs that wouldn't have been found otherwise.

I'm completely satisfied with TestComplete 10, but looking forward to seeing what's in store for version 11!

I've used it for about two years.

The initial deployment of TestComplete was difficult, but with the assistance of SmartBear technical support, I was able to get it up and running.

SmartBear's technical support is excellent. However, due to time zone differences, support can be a little slow.

Previously, testing was performed manually. TestComplete was a great solution to automate the process.

Installing TestComplete was easy, however "floating license" configuration was challenging with the use of VMs.

I implemented TestComplete independently. Their "How-To" videos, forums, and support team are incredibly valuable!

If you have any questions about licensing, Smart Bear's staff is very helpful!

• Object spy and object recognition are working very well, giving us a lot of possibilities.
• Option to work in the same suite without changing from one project to another, which is better than HP QTP/UTF.
• USEINIT feature is really nice (+/- like importing in Java)

It didn’t really change the way my organization works.

A test case design (schema) module would be nice.

I've been using it for nine months, and my customer has been using it for three years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

I just contacted them once. They responded very quickly, which is good, but the problem was on our side, so I cannot really evaluate.

TestComplete was already in place when I arrived, but I know that they chose it because of the debugger and the fact that TestComplete recognizes more objects than QTP/UFT.

It was done in-house.

The name mapping function to manage the objects across different web pages and the support for different web browsers are the most valuable features for us.

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%. This helps to reduce manual effort dramatically, and by using the same script, we can run the test on both IE and Google Chrome.

The scripts are saved as binary files on disk. This makes it troublesome to perform version control and merge it with the work that is done by other team members. I am not sure what the reason is that SmartBear chose to save the files as binary, but if they can change to plain text for the scripts in the future, that would be helpful.

I've used it for one year.

Some of the objects/parent objects are dynamically created in the web page. During the test, TestComplete will have problem to identify these kind of objects. This will cause a lot of false rejection and block the following test cases. Thus it requires some rework when running all the test cases as a batch.

I have not used any customer service/tech support yet. I cannot provide more comments on that.

TestComplete is the first tool that I use for automation on UI and I have not used any other tools yet.

It is pretty straightforward. Just by following the instructions given in the document and do the corresponding configuration on the web browsers that you want to test. However, we also encounter some problems such as the Chrome blocking users from proceeding because of an unsafe SSL connection, but we found a work around eventually.

We implement the automation by ourselves, not through any other vendor team. My suggestion is that you need to decide how to divide the automation work into corresponding components carefully. Otherwise, it will be hard for you to share the common scripts with other team members. Also, the code architecture design is very important as well.

I am not responsible with the licensing quotation/renewal, but the benefit that TestComplete brings to us is, apparently, acknowledged.

Object-based recording, and data-driven testing.

Separation of data into Excel files made tests modifiable by QA personnel with limited development experience, and object-based recording kept maintenance to a minimum.

TestComplete's environment exposes a significant portion of its functionality to the command line, where execution details can be left to .bat files or Windows Scripts.

This allowed us to schedule execution of lengthy tests for nighttime and non-core hours, and to synchronize tests with Jenkins build releases.

This freed up QA assets to perform more specialized testing and reduced redundancy.

Native test result reporting does not provide overview reporting methods for tests that span multiple project suites. Features that allow for flagging a test as dependent on the result of another in multi-project hierarchies while maintaining name-mapping segregation would be much esteemed.

I've used it for approximately eight months.

8/10 - SmartBear representatives are surprisingly responsive, and they go out of their way to offer assistance.

8/10 - SmartBear representatives are surprisingly responsive, and they go out of their way to offer assistance.

The initial set-up was exceedingly simple. There is a silent mode option available during set-up, which is very convenient when deploying to multiple machines or remotely.

We implemented it through an in-house team.

We did not maximize our ROI until we put somebody full-time on our TestComplete endeavours. The tool does have a learning curve, and it wasn't until we had an in-house expert on it that we began to see the benefits of automated testing over traditional QA roles.

The licensing options for TestComplete both running a licensing server. This prevents users from running more sessions simultaneously than purchased keys. This can prove problematic if you want multiple developers writing or running tests at once, and prevents you from using your key while a distributed test is running.

For pricing, carefully consider how many machines you want running the software, rather than the number of developers.

We also evaluated another SmartBear product called SoapUI. The change to TestComplete occurred because we changed our target from web applications to desktop.

My advice in regards to implementation would be to choose carefully which tests to automate, specifically focusing on lengthy procedures, tasks that require looping, or places where you want to test against multiple data sets.

Additionally, I found it beneficial to prefix my keyword tests with a character and number to provide logical ordering instead of alphabetic.

I also found it beneficial to record "undo" steps with each keyword test; this allows each test to be more stand-alone and prevents your test from being dependent on the state the previous test left the application in.

Finally, I would suggesting limiting the number of test applications per test suite to prevent bloated name-mapping schemes.

The automation has improved over time, allowing it to integrate with other external tools for defect tracking.

The automation module helped us save time in regression tests.

It works by recording and playing a script for some part of development. However, there's no way of knowing where it failed. The developers needed help to correct these errors to script them in order to work. I noticed many changes made from version to version.

This tool is also very expensive compared to the similar tools in the market. Price needs to be affordable.

I've used it since 2012.

We faced lots of code breaking, and needed to perform adjustments on our systems to get Test Complete to fit in.

Sometimes it runs fast, and sometimes it runs slow.

No issues encountered.

They used to respond in less than 24 hours, and compared to SpiraTest, it's not that great.

SpiraTest took a minute to respond to any technical support issues, but Test Complete takes longer.

It's not complex.

It was already in place when I joined the company.

6/10.

It's priced high, and they should look into it to make it more competitive.

We also looked at Selenium IDE, and chose it because it's cheaper.

Check the price and compare to other available tools in the market and decide select the one best fits the needs.

The opportunity to work with DevExpress and WPF objects.

• Approximately, we get new build once per week. So I need to provide smoke testing for it. In case of manual tests execution, it is needed 48 hours (six working days) to smoke it. With TestComplete, we need just eight hours (or even less - if we're using multiple machines)
• Stability and Stress testing. It is impossible to test our applications manually for 48 hours (two full days) continuously. With TestComplete, it is possible

• Better stability, as sometimes, TestComplete crashes when attempting to delete over 10 logs
• Support for the latest versions of DevExpress
• More comfortable XML editor (like in Notepad++)
• A better script editor. I will be happy, if the TestComplete editor would contain a design like the one in Visual Studio or Eclipse - errors and unusable variables being highlighte, and refactoring opporunities
• Own log viewer in TestExecute. For now, it is possible to open it only within a browser, which is not very good, because if the log is 2GB or more, it will take 10-20 minuts to open with Internet Explorer

I've used it for three years, including, v7, & v9 with TestExecute v9, and it's been in use on the project since 2010.

When we migrated from v7 to v9, we encountered a problem with using recursive code; in DelphiScript recursion was completely broken.

Sometimes, TestComplete crashes when attempting to delete over 10 logs.

It's acceptable.

It's acceptable.

I tried Visual Studio 2010 (Coded UI Tests feature). The tool was changed, because TC is cheaper and more acceptable for those apps testing. But for now, this project doesn't use QA automation and I am working in another project