We performed a comparison between SmartBear TestComplete and Testim 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."The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"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 is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"Selenium integration."
"The product has many features."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"The product is easy to use."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"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."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"I didn't use it very heavily. One issue that I found was that there wasn't a quick way or a button to move Visual Basic scripts to TestComplete. We have a lot of such scripts in our organization, and it would be very useful to have some option to easily move these scripts. It is currently possible to convert these scripts to TestComplete, but it is not easy. I have to write some code, but everything is not available immediately."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 70 reviews while Testim is ranked 17th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6, while Testim is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Testim writes "A stable tool to help users take care of the implementation phases in their environment". SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish, whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Functionize, Applitools and Testsigma. See our SmartBear TestComplete vs. Testim report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation 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.
