SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

• Tests can be execute and run separately.

• Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested.

• Calls different operations through batch files.

• Has the option for combining data and is keyword driven. It helps people with less knowledge in programming to work with it.

We already have the UI smoke test and have integrated to our build system, which runs each day for multiple version of the product. This saves us a lot of time.

* Product is not stable enough and it crashes often

The application under test is a complex scientific application developed in C++ & C# and use different technologies. So when I try to do Name mapping, it sometimes hangs and have to restart Test complete

* Checking from TestComplete to TFS has issues.

I mostly try to checkin the changes with Visual studio as TestComplete hangs while you try to check in with many changes directly to TFS from Testcomplete.

* Possibility to run a part of keyword tests through TestExecute

Consider you have a keyword test with 10 individual tests. By using test execute, you can only run the main one, not the individual ones.
So I like to have the possibility of running from the 3rd test or just running the 5th one.The option is not present in TestExecute (you can do it in Test complete).

It would help if it were more stable as it sometimes hangs and crashes.

We have different version of the product and it framework/project was easily scalable and used by other projects.

We had multiple technical training sessions which were helpful and almost all the answers are in the community.

When I started at this company, they were using TestComplete.

Getting used to product did take some time.

The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP.

We had a choice with Coded UI as we developed it using C#. However, TestComplete is the preferred choice one over coded UI, as it needed to grow more as a test tool.

Get training and decide on a framework that suited for your application. It always depends on what you want to do with the tool.

I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers.

We are consultants. So we simply provide an automated solution to a client, then move on. We don’t use the product in our day to day work.

The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT.

In UFT, using descriptive programming for a web page you can use.

Browser(description).WebList(description).Select anything.

Regardless of how many panes, frames, panels etc are in the hierarchy before the Weblist object.

But in Smartbear you have to store every frame, panel etc.

So that if you didn’t use the ‘Alias’ functionality you would have an object description miles long.

But even having to use the Alias, you still have to add each and every frame, panel, etc. whereas in UFT you can just use page.object and it will find the object on the page (as long as you’re using unique descriptions!!) without worrying about frames, panes, etc.

We have used this solution for about two years.

I did not encounter any issues with stability.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

I didn’t require any technical support.

I routinely use SmartBear, UFT, and SilkTest. I fit the application used to whatever my client requires.

The initial setup was very straightforward. Even the mobile testing side was easy to setup

My advice so far, is that while it’s not quite as powerful and easy to use as UFT, its price tag more than makes up for it. It makes it an excellent cost saving alternative.

I use several tools.

As with all tools, verify that it will do what you need for a reasonable price.

Automated testing was used to validate security protocols for web applications.

It is easier to store and execute test cases, track test results, and save time with automation.

LoadComplete could be a little more user-friendly, but is still better than LoginVSI. Network issues sometimes made for poor connections.

We have used this solution for one year.

I did not encounter any issues with stability. The product was available within expected measures.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

I would rate the level of technical support as excellent.

We switched from HPE QC/ALM. It did not offer automation on the same scale.

The initial setup was made easier with professional services. Learning to code was harder.

I tell people it is cheaper than ALM with the same features and better UI.

We did evaluate other options, but I can’t recall which ones.

Make sure you have a large volume of testing to transfer. Otherwise, it is not worth the money.

It allows us to test both desktop and web applications. This is a very important feature for system integration tests, as we develop desktop applications, web applications, and a Web API using the same database.

It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing).

In fact, this is an issue regarding how to read the test log in MHT format generated by TestComplete.

We know a test log is always generated automatically by test tool after executing a test. TestComplete provides a standard IDE (Integrated Development Environment) interface for user to review the test log. We don’t have issue reviewing the test log within TestComplete regardless how big the test log is (Our test log record the test running for more than two days without stopping. The test log extension name is .tcLogs and the size of total test log is very big over 2.5 GB).

TestComplete also provides a function for the user to export the log into MHT format file via manually selecting each test log after complete a test or dynamically exporting the test log during test executing via command in test script. The MHT log file can be opened by IE. However, if the MHT file is a little big, such as >200M, the user could experience obvious performance issues. It takes a very long time for IE to open this file because IE loads all the contents into one page which could finally eat up all your system memory. I tried to find another tool to open the big MHT log file, but no luck. Even executing a small test (running for one to two hours), the MHT log file size can easily reach to 200M, if a screenshot is included, for example. Normally, each one round of our regression test runs for 30-48 hours. It is impossible for us to open the big MHT log file as the system runs out of memory and an error appears definitely after hours of waiting to just open this file by IE.

TestExecute is a small tool to just execute the test developed by TestComplete. But TestExecute only generates MHT log file rather than TCLOGS file. Obviously, we cannot open the MHT log file if it is very big. So we gave up using TestExectue and export MHT log file function in TestCompelete at all.

We have to buy six individual full license of TestComplete to run and review the test.

We have used this for nine years.

Overall, TestComplete is quite stable. But the only issue affecting me is if TestComplete is terminated unexpectedly while test is still running (such as, terminating TestComplete without stopping the test first, window restarting, or shutting down unexpectedly), user could lose all the logs.

There were no issues with scalability, but it may have a performance issue with expansion.

Technical support is excellent.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The product is becoming more and more expensive. There are two types of licenses: locked and float. Locked license save more, but can only be used in a physical machine. Float licenses can be run in virtual machines.

QTP, was very expensive when compared to TestComplete, many years ago.

This tool is very easy to use and very powerful. It has a short test development circle and good technical support. There is an expensive license, but it could save more, as testers may spend more time achieving a certain test goal if using an Open Source tool. You need to consider the testers' script experience and the company’s budget to choose the right tool.

Valuable for us is the ability to identify objects by using Find methods. I am able to process whole pages at once rather than doing everything one by one.

Using object spy can be slow sometimes and seems to require a lot of resources.

We have been using the solution for six months.

The solution freezes sometimes, but not very often. Sometimes it doesn’t find any objects from the browser and needs to restart the browser or the whole machine. This happens with Internet Explorer.

It is very difficult to have multiple developers when using Name Mapping. You can’t merge all the files and this creates conflicts.

It scales better for multiple users when using pure script, which reduces the amount of files that cannot be merged.

Support calls were helpful at the beginning, and I haven’t used the support since then.

We used TestPlant eggPlant and are still using it for thick clients where objects are not available. The development speed for TestComplete is faster and more reliable when objects can be seen.

It is easy to install and use.

We went through quite a few of them. This product seemed best for usability and recording features.

Test the trial, then go for it. Keyword tests seem viable for straightforward test cases, but to create dynamic architecture you might want to stick only with scripts and drop Name Mapping.

Keyword tests are easy and fast to record, but adding complex logic for them can be tricky and time consuming.

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.

Object Browser is one of very powerful tool TestComplete provide which can see what processes are running in the memory.

This application is helping a lot in regression testing. If something in the application breaks, we get to know about it quickly, and this saves us time.

There

My team has been using it for three years, and I've been using it for one-and-a-half years.

Not at all. The framework was already in place with my team.

It's very good.

It's very good.

That is my first product of this type.

Initial set-up was pretty straightforward, but that was basic. Complexity grows when you go deep in testing.

We do get some training from SmartBear, but we implement tests on our own.

The ROI makes it worth buying this product.

For more than a year, I've been working on automation of functional testing, regression testing using TestComplete. It is a great tool and hard to learn and use. 
 
Pros:
- It is similar to other tools like Selenium IDE you can record and play test scripts 

- Developer needed to create test scripts using VB Script, Jscript, Delphiscript etc - 
- QA perspective, helps test results logs helps in finding precisely the issue where test failed
- Tests can be recorded in keyword driven or screen capture modes on some screens.
- Tests can be created for regression, functional, DDT (data driven testing), ODT(object driven testing), and so on and it is good to use it for Cross browser testing.
 
Cons:
- There is no support for mobile testing automation.

- QA need to depend upon developer to correct the scripts any change happens. Automated

Recording the scripts and running the scripts should be available to all users.

As a QA, I would like to use it by myself using the application recording and replaying the tests.

On some of the UI application pop up screens, Closing and opening screens etc.