SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

I use SmartBear TestComplete to compare different tools. I perform many of the same actions I do with UFT to gather information about which tool is better for our needs. Additionally, we use it for web application, desktop application, and mobile applications.

It saves time with efficiency and automations, similar to UFT.

The integration with various tools is important. It integrates with Cucumber and behavior-driven development tools, as well as open-source tools like Appium for mobile testing.

The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing.

I use TestComplete more than Cucumber, and it is my first experience with a SmartBear tool.

I didn't find any bugs. The solution is stable. 

TestComplete is scalable.

SmartBear has a very important company behind them, ensuring good support. I would rate their support a ten out of ten.

Positive

I have experience with UFT, which I compare with SmartBear TestComplete.

The initial setup is very easy and straightforward.

I don't have a lot of information for that. Maybe another person could.

I don't know much about the pricing, however, I think it's cheaper.

I recommend SmartBear TestComplete to anyone that needs to document their processes.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Other

SmartBear TestComplete is a web mobile automation solution. SmartBear TestComplete is a low-code automation tool that records and replays your user actions.

SmartBear TestComplete performs some self-healing and has a feature called OCR (optical character recognition). The solution supports JavaScript.

The learning curve of the solution's user interface is a little high for new users.

I have been using SmartBear TestComplete for three years.

We haven’t faced any issues with the solution’s stability.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

SmartBear TestComplete is a scalable solution. SmartBear TestComplete is more suited for enterprise businesses.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten for scalability.

The solution's technical support takes a longer time to respond.

Neutral

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a seven out of ten.

The solution's deployment hardly takes six to seven minutes, sometimes even less than five minutes.

The solution has sped up automation for us.

The solution's pricing is too high.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing nine and a half out of ten.

The solution handles application changes very well. You can add or modify your existing test cases, which is a good feature. One of the solution's major AI capabilities is self-healing, which supports my test activity. The solution's AI capability increased the accuracy of the element identifier.

I would recommend the solution to other users. Besides the cost, SmartBear TestComplete is a good solution for web and mobile.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

On-premises

We use this solution to log into a website, do MFA authentication and to verify test cases.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment. It also frees up manual testing of sites and manual testing of any of our applications. This frees up about 40 hours a week.

This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail. In comparison, Leapwork allows us that visibility and showed us exactly where it failed more easily.

This is a stable solution.

Tech support that we have received so far is pretty good. We haven't really needed to use a lot of their tech support.

Positive

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

We evaluated both Leapwork and SmartBear, along with other automated testing solutions. Both products are really good. I like Leapwork because it is easier for people to use but the price was too high per user per year. SmartBear is easy to use as well but Leapwork is not a no-code solution, whereas SmartBear is a low-code solution.

We went with SmartBear mainly because we're also using SmartBear Swagger. We're already utilizing some of SmartBear's technology in-house and its cost per license per year is lower. That was the key factor in why we decided to go with SmartBear over LeapWork.

The advice that I would give would be to make sure you dedicate some time and resources to laying out how you want to structure the test cases first.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We are using SmartBear TestComplete for automation over applications.

The most valuable feature of SmartBear TestComplete for me is the image comparison functionality. It quickly detects any changes in the UI. I appreciate the play and record type tool, and we can add our script side as well.

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. Occasionally, image comparison results in failures, possibly due to issues with resolution or font size on the server side, which can be challenging to identify.

I have used the solution for two years.

We have encountered some minor issues with stability during image comparisons, likely related to resolution or font size on the server side, but nothing significant.

The solution is fully scalable and works with web, desktop, and mobile applications.

The customer service and support are fine. We generally raise a ticket if we face any technical issues, and the support team responds and sets up calls if required.

Positive

It is easy to install and set up. A little bit of programming knowledge is beneficial if you want to write scripts, but even without programming knowledge, people can easily use it.

One person can easily install the solution.

It is good for return on investment. We do our regression with less manual effort. Once set up, only one person is needed to handle all tasks, reducing the requirement for multiple personnel.

I am not involved in pricing or licensing; our management team handles these aspects.

I rate the overall experience with SmartBear TestComplete at eight points. The AI integration, especially for image comparison, is sufficient for our requirements.

We primarily use the solution for our automating our test scripts.

The record and replay aspects of the solution are quite useful for people. With them, you don't have to write any scripts. Basically, you can record your actions and play them back later.

The initial setup is very easy.

Right now, the product only supports Windows. We'd like to see it work with other operating systems as well. They should definitely be working with iOS, for example. That should just be a given.

The product is quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is quite good. If a company would like to expand it, it can do so. 

Technical support is excellent. If you reach out to them, they will get back to you within 24 hours. 

Positive

The implementation process is hassle-free. I'd rate it a five out of five in terms of ease of installation. It's a very simple process. 

The amount of maintenance needed probably depends upon your project and the number of test scripts you have. It is based on the complexity of your application. If it is straightforward, one person can manage it once it is automated. A larger amount of scripts may require a bit more maintenance, however, something that is low to medium is easy to handle. 

While it's my understanding that clients don't seem bothered by the pricing, I can't speak to the actual cost of the product. That said, it is, as far as I know, competitive in the market.

I'm a reseller. I'm not coming from any organization as a consumer who is consuming TestComplete features. Actually, I'm a solution architect who is demonstrating the features of the tool to others.

While I tend to look at client requirements before recommending any solution if it did fit in with a client's need I would definitely recommend the product. It's very reliable. 

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. While there are some gaps, we've been mostly happy with its capabilities. 

On-premises

I work as a tester for a company.

I use TestComplete in SmartBear and the open-source version of SoapUI.

We use TestComplete for our regression test case distribution.

For Windows application automation, we use TestComplete, and for API automation, we use SoapUI. When compared to TestComple, I find SoapUI to be extremely useful.

TestComplete is extremely efficient when it comes to scripting. In a single day, you can automate more than 100 test cases. If you write the code, Selenium allows you to automate only 10 to 15 cases.

When compared to other tools, it is very simple.

When we try to automate and keep the same script in a few cases, it fails due to control changes. You must have a session open when running in TestComplete, otherwise, your script will fail.

When compared to the competitors, it is a little more complicated.

During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly.

Our frequency control IDs are getting changed. For example, if I develop a script in one mission and then try to deploy the same script in another mission, the script will not be executed properly.

Selenium is more efficient than TestComplete at the point of execution, in my experience.

In terms of execution, attempting to run a script from multiple missions will result in the script being deployed and failing to work in some of the missions.

It would be beneficial if they provided a new open-source library that could be integrated with Selenium. Currently, we must create Java bridge libraries in order to integrate with Selenium. It would be preferable to have a simple APA for consuming the Selenium feature console.

I have been working with SmartBear TestComplete for two years.

We've also phased TestComplete, a slightly lower version, and are looking into TestComplete 14, using the trial version.

This solution is used by myself and two other members of the same team.

I have not contacted technical support because I am using the trial version.

The initial setup is very easy.

We have a TestComplete 12 license.

I would rate SmartBear TestComplete a six out of ten.

We mainly use the solution for test automation. 

The programming capability, as well as the record and play, make the solution very easy to use.

The way that it's licensed is also quite attractive. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward and simple. 

It's scalable. 

It has a very good run time.

The solution is mainly stable. 

The integration tools could be better. It would be useful if we could use it with other test management tools.

We'd like to see the solution add a few more features to the offering.

I've used the solution for more than five years. 

By and large, it is a stable product. There may be some bug fixes needed here or there. however, for the most part, it's fine. 

The solution is scalable. 

We aren't a very big company. Maybe 20 people are using the solution. Most of them are test automation engineers.

Technical support is average. It's not bad, nor is it outstanding. 

Neutral

I did not previously use a different solution. 

The company does, however, also use IBM tools. 

It is an easy solution to set up. The deployment takes minutes. It's very fast to set up.

We only need one person to maintain the solution. 

Our own team handled the implementation. We didn't need any outside assistance from integrators or consultants. 

The solution is around $1500. Some are perpetual licenses, and some get a yearly report card. 

Our team occasionally does test other options. 

We had some sort of partnership with the product.

I'm not sure which version we're using. The version we're using is likely two years old. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. 

On-premises

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.

In SmartBear TestComplete the integration with Jenkins could be easier. Additionally, some of the controls could have better customization options. For example, if a grid is used and it contains multiple controls within it, it can be a checkbox, radio button, or any kind of control, the way the Object Spy is operating currently there is a lot of room for improvement.

There are a lot of improvements that are required on the Object Spy, such as how we find the locators. That is a feature which I would love to see. 

It is currently very tightly coupled to the SmartBear ID. There should be a way that they could support the integration with external libraries and make it flexible to integrate with open-source frameworks. This would be a good option to add.

I have been using SmartBear TestComplete for approximately eight years.

SmartBear TestComplete is a stable solution.

When it comes to customization controls the scalability of SmartBear TestComplete is limited. However, the assets are scalable. It's easy to scale across the solutions within the same limited functionality.

The technical support from SmartBear TestComplete is good.

The initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete is easy. The process is almost instant, it is very easy.

The price of SmartBear TestComplete could be less. The main challenge is when it comes to node-locked. They should use a subscription model, such as a monthly-based subscription or, a quarterly-based subscription. Their floating license is very expensive, and this high price should be reduced or provide, at a minimum, a subscription model.

When it comes to automation, the fundamental aspects are the stabilization factor, how easy it is to automate, how much is the coverage, and how much are you able to cover with respect to an application. There will be always areas that cannot be automated. The coverage, stabilization, and ease to automate are the areas that have to be improved. The better the pricing and improved pricing models, the more it will attract more customers. 

I rate SmartBear TestComplete a seven out of ten.

On-premises