SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

Object-based recording, and data-driven testing.

Separation of data into Excel files made tests modifiable by QA personnel with limited development experience, and object-based recording kept maintenance to a minimum.

TestComplete's environment exposes a significant portion of its functionality to the command line, where execution details can be left to .bat files or Windows Scripts.

This allowed us to schedule execution of lengthy tests for nighttime and non-core hours, and to synchronize tests with Jenkins build releases.

This freed up QA assets to perform more specialized testing and reduced redundancy.

Native test result reporting does not provide overview reporting methods for tests that span multiple project suites. Features that allow for flagging a test as dependent on the result of another in multi-project hierarchies while maintaining name-mapping segregation would be much esteemed.

I've used it for approximately eight months.

8/10 - SmartBear representatives are surprisingly responsive, and they go out of their way to offer assistance.

8/10 - SmartBear representatives are surprisingly responsive, and they go out of their way to offer assistance.

The initial set-up was exceedingly simple. There is a silent mode option available during set-up, which is very convenient when deploying to multiple machines or remotely.

We implemented it through an in-house team.

We did not maximize our ROI until we put somebody full-time on our TestComplete endeavours. The tool does have a learning curve, and it wasn't until we had an in-house expert on it that we began to see the benefits of automated testing over traditional QA roles.

The licensing options for TestComplete both running a licensing server. This prevents users from running more sessions simultaneously than purchased keys. This can prove problematic if you want multiple developers writing or running tests at once, and prevents you from using your key while a distributed test is running.

For pricing, carefully consider how many machines you want running the software, rather than the number of developers.

We also evaluated another SmartBear product called SoapUI. The change to TestComplete occurred because we changed our target from web applications to desktop.

My advice in regards to implementation would be to choose carefully which tests to automate, specifically focusing on lengthy procedures, tasks that require looping, or places where you want to test against multiple data sets.

Additionally, I found it beneficial to prefix my keyword tests with a character and number to provide logical ordering instead of alphabetic.

I also found it beneficial to record "undo" steps with each keyword test; this allows each test to be more stand-alone and prevents your test from being dependent on the state the previous test left the application in.

Finally, I would suggesting limiting the number of test applications per test suite to prevent bloated name-mapping schemes.

The automation has improved over time, allowing it to integrate with other external tools for defect tracking.

The automation module helped us save time in regression tests.

It works by recording and playing a script for some part of development. However, there's no way of knowing where it failed. The developers needed help to correct these errors to script them in order to work. I noticed many changes made from version to version.

This tool is also very expensive compared to the similar tools in the market. Price needs to be affordable.

I've used it since 2012.

We faced lots of code breaking, and needed to perform adjustments on our systems to get Test Complete to fit in.

Sometimes it runs fast, and sometimes it runs slow.

No issues encountered.

They used to respond in less than 24 hours, and compared to SpiraTest, it's not that great.

SpiraTest took a minute to respond to any technical support issues, but Test Complete takes longer.

It's not complex.

It was already in place when I joined the company.

6/10.

It's priced high, and they should look into it to make it more competitive.

We also looked at Selenium IDE, and chose it because it's cheaper.

Check the price and compare to other available tools in the market and decide select the one best fits the needs.

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

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.

• 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..

• Its Multi browser testing capabilities
• Record-and playback
• Network suite testing (remote testing) capabilities
• Key word driven testing with ability to finetune tests using scripting languages
• Its flexible logging capabilities
• High level of support from Smartbear
• Support of other users in large userbase

Using TestComplete, the application tests are executed at night unmanned, so that test engineers can focus on developing new tests instead of executing existing tests.

Implementation of screen recording during testing (video recording).

I've used it for approximately four years.

No issues encountered,

No issues encountered,

Very professional and adequate. I would rate this on a 9.5/10.

Very professional and adequate. I would rate this on a 9.5/10.

It's straightforward.

I implemented it myself, using instructions from the vendor’s website.

Start with evaluation version of the product, which can be downloaded from Smartbear's website, and after the initial evaluation, decide which licensing method you need.

I have evaluated other solutions, the cost model, the level of support of legacy software, the easy of use and easy implementation approach were main reasons to choose this product.

Focus on implementing a test automation framework. Start by downloading a free evaluation trial version of the product, and see if the product works well with the application(s) you want to design an automated test frame for.

It supports JScript and it has unified way of finding and manipulating controls from different vendors on different platforms. As a key feature for beginners - It can record user actions and reproduce them.

First two companies began to rely on results of automated regression.

There is no qualified support for different web UI frameworks and no V8 support as well. The other thing that must be improved is their licensing policy with Virtual Machines.

I've used it for six years.

There were some issues.

5/5.

5/5.

I used different solution afterwards and I can say there is no other product with such great flexibility.

The initial setup is as simple as any product with a Windows installer.

ROI is simple. We've spent three months on development and automated one month of regular regression tests done manually for each release. Now we did it for each build.