We performed a comparison between OpenText Business Processing Testing and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."
"This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"The ease-of-use and quality of the overall product are above average."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows."
"The solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with the ALM tool that they have. It should have its own base rather than the repository."
"There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be very easier to understand it if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this tool."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"Headless testing would be a big improvement."
"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."
"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."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"Error handling features in the tool are a little limited."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
Earn 20 points
OpenText Business Processing Testing is ranked 37th in Functional Testing Tools while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 71 reviews. OpenText Business Processing Testing is rated 7.8, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of OpenText Business Processing Testing writes "Excellent usability, but the solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with their ALM tool". 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". OpenText Business Processing Testing is most compared with , whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.