We performed a comparison between Appium and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Regression Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Appium's best feature is that it supports multiple frameworks."
"It has great documentation and excellent community support."
"We do not need to pay for the solution. It’s free."
"Appium helps me to do as much as much as I want to."
"The solution is stable."
"It's an open-source solution with a very large community and available documentation."
"The automation part is extremely helpful in streamlining our processes."
"I haven't explored other solutions in this particular area, but what I like best about Appium is the fact that it shares functions with Selenium. The extension of Selenium functions allows me to use all of the methods that exist in that domain, and it just makes it simpler for me. I've been using Selenium for some time as well, so using Appium just seems like a natural fit for me."
"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."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment."
"TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."
"This company offers end-to-end capabilities for test suite creation and execution. One feature that I particularly appreciate is the tagging system. Tags are highly valuable, as they allow you to assign tags to your test cases. When there's an impact in a specific area, you can search for and run all test cases associated with that tag. I find this functionality very useful."
"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."
"Configuration-wise, there is a lot of room for improvement."
"The setup and installation were a problem for us at first."
"We haven't been able to fully leverage Appium for multiple reasons. I think number one is just that the tests take a long time to run. We have had some issues around just the results themselves and how predictable they are, but those are not issues with Appium directly."
"The initial setup is straightforward if you have previous experience with the solution, but it can be complicated for a novice user."
"We previously worked with native applications, and there weren't any good mobile app testing tools. We started working with React Native, which works well with Appium, but it would be good to see better integration; the way elements are displayed can be messy. React Native is very popular nowadays, so it's essential to have that compatibility."
"One thing which can be really helpful is that there is some kind of a recorder made available rather than scripting everything."
"There is always a concern about the amount of code that is required to enhance the automation process. The idea of having less code or no code is what we would like to see in future updates."
"An application developed on the Unity platform, such as a gaming application, objects are moving in that case. Interacting with those elements is still lacking in Appium. Appium doesn't have the internal library to play with the Unity platform. That is a huge lack right now."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"To bring it up to a 10, I would be looking for the addition of some key functional API testing."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"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."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"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."
Appium is ranked 5th in Regression Testing Tools with 17 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 6th in Regression Testing Tools with 8 reviews. Appium is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Appium writes "Open source, with no performance issues, but setting it up wasn't as straightforward, and its documentation and Touch Actions need improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "Easy to learn with accurate recordings and good consistency". Appium is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Perfecto, Xamarin Platform and Apache JMeter, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and LEAPWORK. See our Appium vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Regression 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.