SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

• Good IDE
• Support of third party controls
• Flexible in coding
• Supports .Net assemblies
• Good community

It's decreased the time needed for the regression testing cycle.

• Memory consumption
• Speed of interaction with controls
• Sets of prepared libraries like asserts
• Templates of tests from scratch

I've used TestComplete for three years.

It's stable.

It's good, I like the support.

Previously was QTP. TestComplete is much more flexible light,and easy to use.

It's quite easy to start using it. There were no problems from the beginning.

Use JScript for quick wins. Start creating tests as small as possible.

I would say that we have now automated about 100 tests, so it saves us three days every month..

We have what we call a UK tax related application. We are using the solution to automate some functional cases of the application. Use case wise, it's usually used more on the accounting side, which is the main purpose of the application. With the available functional testing of workflows, we are able to have accountability there.

The solution's most valuable aspect is how easy it is to create tests. For example, recording options.

The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup.

We can easily create test suites without much trouble. For example, by using the UFP test, we can directly create a test suite. 

The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools.

I have three or four months of experience on the solution. I am an architect on technical optics. Different teams work on the project as well. I mentor them sometimes as part of my job. As far as hands-on experience goes, I can say I've only actually been using it for a few months. It hasn't been more than that.

Our company as a whole, on the other hand, has been using the solution for the better part of four or five years now.

We haven't had any problems with stability. It's reliable. We haven't witnessed any bugs or glitches. It doesn't seem to crash on us or to freeze.

The solution is scalable. There are no issues in that sense. If a company needs to expand out the solution they can do so easily. We can add as many artifacts as we want.

I'm not sure if we have plans to increase usage in the future.

I've never used technical support, so I can't speak to how good technical support is.

The initial set up was not complex. I can say it's straightforward due to the fact that we have started out relatively small. We have gradually developed it. We continue to build it out all the time. That made it simple. This was important for us, as our team didn't have too much experience with the solution. 

The deployment was handled by my IT team. I did not handle the deployment personally.

The implementation was handled in house by our own teams.

The pricing is reasonable. It's not too expensive as a solution. We're satisfied with the billing so far.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

If you compare it with competitors, the object identification needs to be improved. It also needs to ensure that going forward it supports new technologies. We are seeing a lot of new technologies coming up. It's important that test companies support these new advancements. If they do, then it will give testers a reason to try them out and hopefully adopt the solution. It's a win-win.

The solution is also great for language flexibility. It's important to support a number of languages to help increase user adoption.

I'd recommend this solution to other organizations. It's one of three I'd recommend for sure based on the pricing and feature offering it has. Of course, this is just a recommendation n terms of a commercial tool. Open-source tool recommendations are a whole other question.

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.

Keywords-Driven frameworks and Data-Driven Testing (DDT) methodologies used for building effective frameworks.

The fact that the latest version can be used for mobile testing.

A more effective way in Objects Mapping for applications built on domains/platforms such as Sliverlight, and Citrix is needed.

I've used it for three years.

Technical support can be improved by being more efficient in responding to questions.

Used some other products, but this was found to be the most suited for business requirements.

The initial step was straightforward which was made by carrying out a POC and the decision was to go for this solution.

Following initial training by the vendor, the implementations are done in-house.

It is value for money, and different licensing options are available.

Fig 1: Building of Automation Testing framework.

Fig 2: Automation Testing Results

It allows me to invoking an application and then to browse the application. I've done some good research with TestComplete along with Google Earth.

I was part of a systems architecture team and we were looking into various kinds of automation tools. We found this solution to be the most complete tool.

More APIs could be added.

I used it for six months.

I didn't encounter any stability issues in my short tenure, although I remember invoking the application twice although there is was an instance already open.

I haven't had to use customer service.

I haven't had to use technical support.

Initial setup was easy, but implementation was a little tricky initially. I could not find any sample projects that I could use as a guide.

It's open source, so it's free.

We looked at other solutions, but this was the most complete.

It's a great tool that covers many features and is straightforward with logs.

• Data driven testing using Microsoft Excel
• Viewing properties of objects using Object Spy
• Organizing test runs using the Test Items page of the project editor

For versions 8.X to 9.20.2460.7, I've been using TestComplete for about four and a half years.

It seems to crash once every two to three months.

7/10

7/10

For a node-locked license, it's pretty straightforward. For floating licenses, it's a little more complex because you have to set-up the license manager and do a little bit of configuration on the computers that use the floating licenses.

Test Runs on Chrome. Test Runs are faster than the previosu version.

After NPAPI was unsupported by Chrome, our test runs were halted on Chrome for a previous version of TestComplete. Started running again with version 11.11.

ExtJS extension and reading of JQuery standard modal screens is still not so good. For Automating ExtJS based systems you have to do record and playback to extract methods and no substantial documentation has been provided.

None.

The product is relatively stable.

It is quick.

Not so helpful most of the times. They always fail to produce a work around.

It was easy.

In-House.

Do not buy all the modules at once, if your primary system under test is for example Web based then only buy the web module.