SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems.

TestComplete replaced QTP as the preferred choice of tool for the organization. It is much faster, works better across technologies (esp. Flex based UI) and is better compatible with newer technologies directly out of the box. We could have our automation engineers create tests more easily. Also, we were able to set-up lab machines to enable distributed runs for more applications in a shared environment.

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 like Notepad++. Performance is another aspect which can be improved.

I've used it for one and a half years.

TestComplete was fairly easy to scale once we had the licenses in place for the organization.

We used tech support for some specific third-party grids we had to automate. The support was average and we ended up creating our own automation solution for that piece of automation.

We previously used QTP, and later moved to TestComplete as it provided more out of the box support for newer technologies like Flex and AIR.

Initial setup was very straightforward. We did face some hiccups in license procurement however, once licenses were procured the process from there was quite smooth.

We had a mixed team. The implementation was smooth overall and requires a few skilled automation experts to oversee the transition/initial implementation.

We achieved ROI in eight months from the start of implementation. Get a good automation architect to implement a good ROI directed framework. It is very easy to lose direction during a mmigration.

• QTP
• Selenium

It's easy to work with and doesn’t take much to get it setup to start working with it.

In my previous three positions, there was not a test automation solution in place. I was given the opportunity to explore options. Once I chose a solution, we were able to implement TestComplete and were able to automate about 90% of the manual testing that was done prior to implementing TestComplete.

This product continually improves and in v11, they now have Python support. This was something that I wanted and they provided it the latest version.

I've used it for 11 years.

I have not run into any issues with deployment.

I have not run into any issues with stability.

I have not run into any issues with scalability.

Another one of the many reasons why I chose TestComplete. The level of customer service and technical support can’t be beat. SmartBear always answers my questions within 24-48 hours.

They have a great website, help and forums that also help in finding the answers I need in a timely manner.

It was very straightforward which was another reason why I went with TestComplete. I was able to use the demo version (when I was searching for options) to create tests easily, so when I had to demonstrate the product to my management teams, they could easily see why TestComplete was the product for us.

The implementation was done by me. The best recommendation is to read the help guide, especially if you are using the product in different ways, like floating licenses. This is where the license server is on one machine and people have to access TestComplete that are not local. However, if you run into any issues, the customer support department is there to help in any way they can.

My ROI has been the fact that it takes less time to run all of the tests that were done previously. Prior to TestComplete, it would take over three weeks to run all of the tests that needed to be run for a release. After TestComplete, we have been able to reduce that time to less than one week.

One of the main reasons I went with TestComplete, besides the information that I already provided, was the cost for TestComplete and TestExecute. They make it very easy for large to small companies to implement without large costs. The licenses are broken down the amount of users that need to use it and they also have the option of floating licenses.

I looked at various options like QuickTest Professional, Rational Functional Tester, and SilkTest.

The test tree makes for quick work of choosing which tests you want to run at any time. Whether it's all or nothing, I can re-run parts of a test suite without having to start over again.

The Object Spy has surpassed any other "spy" tools I have ever used. It allows me to input parameters without having to write a quick Visual Basic script around it to try it. Diving deep into object trees can be made a breeze with the search function.

I would like to see improved language support, with Python being my

first choice. Visual Basic is outdated, where C# has been its

replacement for years.

This solution has been in use for almost three years, since I started working at this company. It has been mostly stable with static test cases, and only minor maintenance. The updates typically are changing search criteria. We upgraded from v9 about one year ago.

Technical support has been good. There was an issue where certain installations of TestComplete would give an ambiguous error on startup. After teleconferencing with one of their support specialists, we were able to solve it. Forum support on their community site has also been good.

No previous solution I know of was implemented prior to my employment here. Attempting to implement the same solution in UFT would have been nearly impossible.

The initial setup was straightforward. Licensing was simple, and getting the initial object mapping was painless. Only a high-level base set of object mapping was done.

The implementation was done entirely in-house. The projects were made from scratch, where function libraries & test suites were made from existing manual test cases.

• High UI technologies coverage
• Direct access to object internal properties and methods

Faster feedback on any product changes and uncovered problems before full regression starts. That can save a lot of time.

Scripting languages should be extended to support more popular programming languages like Java, C#, Ruby, Python. Many other vendors have such support or moved into such a direction. e.g. SilkTest has OpenAgent since 2008 with support of Java, C#. HP recently published LeanFT which integrates with popular development environments (Eclipse, Visual Studio). IBM solutions were initially designed for Java. Squish supports multiple languages. So, TestComplete should have support of such programming languages apart from VBScript and JScript modifications.

About three years onwards.

TestComplete had problems during long hours runs. In some cases it could crash without leaving any logs. Also, if there were some unhanded exception it could drop the error message waiting for user input. This is not really acceptable for nightly runs and required human assistance. But this problem is rather language-specific

I never had to speak to them.

I never had to speak to them.

The setup is pretty easy.

We used a vendor team. My advice for implementation is only one, follow the best practices (some of them are available on the vendor site). They were formulated based on real experiences.

ROI was never calculated explicitly, but normally the ROI point was expected to be reached after three to five months of the project.

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

I'm currently are trying to apply it to our software application.

We use it for testing Windows applications for CUTE, based on the CUTE framework. For now, that's all we use it for because Complete does not suggest any other options that are appropriate for us. By that, I mean it doesn't seem to work with Mac OS, Android OS, and iOS.

I only have experience with Windows, so I find all the best features are for that operating system.

Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well.

The solution has a great feature called macro recording. With it, I can make it into a macro in a few of the languages Complete suggests. This is really useful for me, personally.

The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS.

Right now, Complete can test only on native Android and native iOS applications.

I've been using the solution for about a month. 

This tool is quite stable. I had only one crash, and I sent a report for this crash to technical support. Everything else seems to work perfectly. Aside from the one issue, we haven't had any other problems.

I don't have any experience, unfortunately, with scalability. We use just one instance on one machine so I've never attempted to scale the solution. There's just one user on the platform right now.

I am not sure if our organization will extend its usage in the future. We have a strong need to make this work on other platforms. We may switch to a different tool.

I do have some experience with technical support. I've found a few answers to my issues on Smart BF5. I've also had assistance with the support engineers. So far, I've been satisfied with the level of support I have been able to receive. 

I have used other solutions, including ALTA. It has good UI, but I don't know if you are really able to directly compare it to this solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. We found it simple and not too complex. Our team didn't run into any issues.

For us, deployment took two to three days.

We didn't use an integrator, reseller or consultant for the deployment. We handled the entire process ourselves.

I'm not sure if there are licensing costs involved in the solution. We simply bought the product outright and started using it.

I'm currently working with the latest version of the solution.

My advice to others is to just decide if this tool is usable for your requirements. I spent a lot of time developing some tests, but then I understood that we actually needed more platforms. That's why we will switch to another tool. That's also why it's important to check your organization's requirements. Otherwise, like us, you may need to switch.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

The opportunity to work with DevExpress and WPF objects.

• Approximately, we get new build once per week. So I need to provide smoke testing for it. In case of manual tests execution, it is needed 48 hours (six working days) to smoke it. With TestComplete, we need just eight hours (or even less - if we're using multiple machines)
• Stability and Stress testing. It is impossible to test our applications manually for 48 hours (two full days) continuously. With TestComplete, it is possible

• Better stability, as sometimes, TestComplete crashes when attempting to delete over 10 logs
• Support for the latest versions of DevExpress
• More comfortable XML editor (like in Notepad++)
• A better script editor. I will be happy, if the TestComplete editor would contain a design like the one in Visual Studio or Eclipse - errors and unusable variables being highlighte, and refactoring opporunities
• Own log viewer in TestExecute. For now, it is possible to open it only within a browser, which is not very good, because if the log is 2GB or more, it will take 10-20 minuts to open with Internet Explorer

I've used it for three years, including, v7, & v9 with TestExecute v9, and it's been in use on the project since 2010.

When we migrated from v7 to v9, we encountered a problem with using recursive code; in DelphiScript recursion was completely broken.

Sometimes, TestComplete crashes when attempting to delete over 10 logs.

It's acceptable.

It's acceptable.

I tried Visual Studio 2010 (Coded UI Tests feature). The tool was changed, because TC is cheaper and more acceptable for those apps testing. But for now, this project doesn't use QA automation and I am working in another project

I used this solution mostly for a proof of concept. We have a lot of desktop applications with a lot of engines and customized framework. I used this solution to prove that it can interact with some old desktop applications or customized framework, where any other tool would not fit. 

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.

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.

I have been using this solution for maybe one year. 

It is very stable and easy going.

I didn't come to that point. In my department, we had two users. 

I didn't contact them.

The initial setup was very straightforward. I have a lot of experience and knowledge. Therefore, it was very easy for me to switch to TestComplete, but I am not sure about a new person.

I would definitely recommend this solution. I would rate SmartBear TestComplete an eight out of ten.

The features of TestComplete that were most valuable to me were:

• The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)
• The ability to create test scripts that were easy to modify;
• The ability to easily review a log of software errors, if any

It would have been a huge task to have to run the test scripts manually, probably 12 hours straight. We were able to run tests on daily promotions of software so all software was tested every night, making any bugs instantly visible the next morning. It gave us quick confirmation that software changes worked, and without breaking any existing software.

We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses. This was because sometimes the Windows PC feeding the scanner script data was faster than the scanner could process it, so we had to constantly tweek the wait times so the script wouldn’t bomb out. I have since used software with a “wait for” function that would wait for a response, but if TestComplete did, we didn’t know about it.

One of the main reasons I was hired was to use TestComplete with green screen applications, which was possible, but not easy. You had to know the exact column and row position of every text line on the screen so you could verify the string being tested and analyze exactly where and what the response would be.

I used TestComplete as a QA Automation consultant for about six months.

No

No

No

We never needed customer service.

We never needed technical support.

Nothing previous to TestComplete.

That happened before I was hired, so I don't know.

TestComplete was implemented with the help of contract software developers who created the test scripts, which was invaluable to be able to use it for testing, and to use them as templates so we could copy and modify to make new scripts.

unknown.

unknown.

TestComplete was installed before I was hired, so I know nothing about this.