We performed a comparison between ReadyAPI and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them."
"The Excel sheet feature is good."
"The performance testing capabilities are very good."
"The most valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it is user-friendly."
"It can create stress tests very fast, and some features help you do it fast."
"For anyone who does not have experience with automation, ReadyAPI provides a sense of comfort, especially for testers who find it hard to go directly into coding."
"The most valuable features are the integration with Jira and the test management tools."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"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."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"It is challenging doing upgrades and patches because sometimes the environmental variables or suits in the projects get erased."
"ReadyAPI can improve because it is limited to only SOAP and REST services. They should update the solution to include more protocols so that other people are not limited to SOAP and REST services. Other than would be able to utilize it."
"Better compatibility or more support for the older versions would be helpful."
"Lacking flexibility of adding more custom verification for security testing."
"The solution is made up of multiple tools, and the one additional feature we'd like to have is load testing."
"The initial setup could be less complex."
"There is room for improvement in ReadyAPI, particularly in the user interface."
"The overall scope of this solution is limited and could be improved."
"At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has reduced the challenges to some extent, as we can now utilize OCR if the normal method doesn't work. Nevertheless, there is still significant potential for improvement in TestComplete's ability to identify various object elements. I don't have any specific concerns to mention. I have observed significant improvements in TestComplete over the past few years, especially in its support for highly dynamic object elements used in products like Salesforce Dynamics 365. In earlier versions, there were numerous challenges, but the current version is far superior to its predecessors."
"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."
"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."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"Headless testing would be a big improvement."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult."
ReadyAPI is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 72 reviews. ReadyAPI is rated 7.8, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, ReadyAPI Test and Parasoft SOAtest, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and Telerik Test Studio. See our ReadyAPI vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.