No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

SmartBear TestComplete vs SmartBear TestLeft comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
6th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (6th)
SmartBear TestLeft
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
44th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 4.4%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestLeft is 0.6%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
SmartBear TestComplete4.4%
SmartBear TestLeft0.6%
Other95.0%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Test Lead at Emerson
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.
reviewer1378161 - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Consultant at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
Simple to set up and the test execute feature is helpful, but the cost could be reduced
Our primary use case is Point of Sale (POS) testing The most valuable features are test executor and development. TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved. We have been using SmartBear TestLeft for the past month. Stability-wise, TestLeft is…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"I changed because I did not have any solutions as close to the real thing as this."
"Mainly, when we did an evaluation and comparison, TestComplete had two big advantages - Good technology support Relatively low price in comparison to other vendor tools"
"To me, the Object Browser has proven to be the most valuable feature of this product."
"It's very helpful that, when you have a recording in one application, in one navigator, you can replay every step in different applications."
"Object Browser is the most powerful feature."
"After TestComplete, we have been able to reduce that time to less than one week."
"It is value for money, and different licensing options are available."
"Possibility of the automated testing, installing plugins and extensions, data-driven testing and debugger."
"The most valuable features are test executor and development."
 

Cons

"I have used it for Web Application automation and sometimes find difficulties while recognizing dynamically-generated runtime object."
"There often are issues with web test execution."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
"There is no qualified support for different web UI frameworks and no V8 support as well."
"To bring it up to a 10, I would be looking for the addition of some key functional API testing."
"Memory consumption Speed of interaction with controls Sets of prepared libraries like asserts Templates of tests from scratch"
"A major part of the product that needs improvement is the licenser."
"I pay for support and maintenance; having used the “support” functions through online forums, I can say there is room for improvement."
"TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is approximately $6,000 a year."
"TestComplete now have come up with three modules (Web, Desktop & Mobile), so based on the type of product for automation, it is adequate to purchase the required module."
"We have a TestComplete 12 license."
"Our ROI is about $10,000 a year."
"SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool."
"The option we chose was around $2,000 USD."
"The pricing is pretty reasonable."
"The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP."
"The cost should be reduced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
921,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Construction Company
10%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise19
Large Enterprise32
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I am not involved in pricing or licensing; our management team handles these aspects.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
While using SmartBear TestComplete, we are fine with the current capabilities, however, it would be beneficial to improve some performance aspects, especially the image comparison feature. Occasion...
What is your primary use case for SmartBear TestComplete?
We are using SmartBear TestComplete ( /products/smartbear-testcomplete-reviews ) for automation over applications.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
American Red Cross, CISCO, HONDA, ADIDAS, TBC bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Worksoft and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: November 2026.
921,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.