We performed a comparison between LEAPWORK and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It provides automated testing. Instead of us doing manual testing, we can utilize Leapwork, and it tests most of our critical processes. In the next phase, we also plan to do some process work with it, such as using Leapwork to create reports or provide certain extracts of data."
"The UI is user-friendly."
"The most valuable of this solution is the no code option. It offers drag and drop when it comes to development and removes the need for a developer."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"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."
"The product has many features."
"Selenium integration."
"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 most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"The only thing that I don't like about the product is the need to deploy agents on the laptops of people doing the testing. So, you have an agent on a server, then you have an agent on the laptop of the person who is doing the testing, and that seems like a lot of stuff and a kind of anti-cloud. Why do I have to deploy agents on people's machines in order to do something in the cloud? I'm sure they're doing that so they can monitor their licensing and all that stuff, but it is not necessarily a friendly process."
"It is a very comprehensive tool, and there is a significant learning curve to being able to adopt the tool. Because it does so much, there is only so much that you can learn. You can, however, do some simpler things right away. They do have a kind of boot camp where some of their experts engage with you, and during that time, you can work on the top initiatives that you want to do, and that's a good process. After you start using the tool, there is a lot more that you would want to do."
"This solution could be improved by offering better reporting related to the integration into Azure DevOps."
"The initial setup is difficult."
"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."
"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."
"It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing)."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"Error handling features in the tool are a little limited."
"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."
"Product is not stable enough and it crashes often."
"The pricing is the constraint."
LEAPWORK is ranked 17th in Test Automation Tools with 3 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 70 reviews. LEAPWORK is rated 7.6, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of LEAPWORK writes "The product has a user-friendly UI, and it provides good support, but it is expensive and difficult to setup". 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". LEAPWORK is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Avo Assure and Katalon Studio, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and UiPath Test Suite. See our LEAPWORK vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.