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."It is the best solution you can get across the globe for API, test automation, and API penetration testing."
"The most valuable feature has been the assertion as a test step as this has allowed us to increase the scope of testing and validation."
"ReadyAPI's best features are that it's user-friendly and its behavior-driven development is flexible."
"It's great for those that don't have as much exposure to programming."
"The feature that allows you to import an API collection or a project is valuable."
"It's easy to learn how to use it."
"It's easy to automate for more data-driven testing."
"ReadyAPI's best features are user-friendliness, smooth integration with Postman, the speed of creating test cases, and integration with customer data."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"Selenium integration."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"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."
"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"ReadyAPI's customer support isn't that great, particularly their response time."
"It doesn't have connectors to the NoSQL database. This is one of the things where they do not have a very solid strategy today. Other solutions have an in-built mechanism where I can directly and easily connect. An API is more around a user submitting a request on the frontend. It then hits the backend, puts the data, and responds back. If I am hitting MongoDB or NoSQL databases, I do not have ready-made inbuilt solutions in ReadyAPI that can easily help me in automating it faster. In our organization, we deal with NoSQL databases, and therefore, we need Groovy. We just cannot have a connector from ReadyAPI to do that. I have to write Groovy scripts. If you have themes that are predominantly using MongoDB, it leads to more maintenance and support activity because we are introducing more code into our commission. In terms of additional features, it can have cloud support. This is one of the things where we are getting into cloud support. We'll see how it works, but it is one of the doubts that we still have."
"The UI should be flexible. Currently, the UI isn't."
"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."
"The UI is not user-friendly."
"ReadyAPI could improve by adding a conversion tool from one file type to another. Import support for multiple file types would be beneficial."
"In terms of features, I have already raised different change requests on the ReadyAPI side. One of the largest functions I've requested is the validation of the payload for the REST APIs."
"The Property Transfer capability could be more user friendly because it is a bit difficult to understand."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
"One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git."
"The integration tools could be better."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"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."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 23 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. ReadyAPI is rated 7.6, 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 "Easy to learn with accurate recordings and good consistency". ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, ReadyAPI Test, Tricentis Tosca and Parasoft SOAtest, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and SmartBear TestLeft. 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.