No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Functionize vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Functionize
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
17th
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
6th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (7th), Regression Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Functionize is 1.2%, down from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 5.3%, down from 5.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
SmartBear TestComplete5.3%
Functionize1.2%
Other93.5%
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2541093 - PeerSpot reviewer
QA Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Provides efficient test automation for web applications and has good technical support services
The platform's most valuable features include its recorder, which allows users to create test cases with minimal effort, significantly simplifying the process. Vision AI enhances image recognition capabilities, improving the accuracy and efficiency of visual testing. The audit trail feature helps track changes and maintain compliance, which is particularly important in regulated industries. Smart fix automatically resolves issues, reducing manual intervention, while the self-healing feature ensures that test cases remain accurate and functional, even when system changes occur.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Test Lead at Emerson
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The platform's most valuable features include its recorder, which allows users to create test cases with minimal effort, significantly simplifying the process."
"Using TestComplete I was able to immediately (after installation) begin coding regression tests for available functionality."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"Technical support is excellent, and if you reach out to them, they will get back to you within 24 hours."
"To me, the Object Browser has proven to be the most valuable feature of this product."
"Object Browser is the most powerful feature."
"I tell people it is cheaper than ALM with the same features and better UI."
"Customer Service: It's good. Technical Support: It's good."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
 

Cons

"The solution currently does not support mobile applications. It would significantly improve its versatility."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"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."
"Technical support can be improved by being more efficient in responding to questions."
"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++."
"Right now, in terms of recording and scripting the solution is not user-friendly."
"They have some benefits which TestComplete doesn't have, but in general TestComplete overcomes them."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product helps reduce overall costs by decreasing reliance on manual testers and speeding up testing cycles."
"The solution's pricing is too high."
"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
"TestComplete now have come up with three modules (Web, Desktop & Mobile), so based on the type of product for automation, it is adequate to purchase the required module."
"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 costs a few hundred per year, but I am not sure. It is not at all expensive as compared to other tools."
"SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool."
"It is approximately $6,000 a year."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
911,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Hospitality Company
5%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
10%
Outsourcing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise19
Large Enterprise32
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Functionize?
The product helps reduce overall costs by decreasing reliance on manual testers and speeding up testing cycles.
What needs improvement with Functionize?
The solution currently does not support mobile applications. It would significantly improve its versatility.
What is your primary use case for Functionize?
We use the product to transition customers from manual to automated testing, particularly for web applications. It involves reducing team sizes, accelerating testing strategies, and providing speci...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I am not involved in pricing or licensing; our management team handles these aspects.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
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. Occasion...
What is your primary use case for SmartBear TestComplete?
We are using SmartBear TestComplete ( /products/smartbear-testcomplete-reviews ) for automation over applications.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Salesforce, Mastercard, Google, HP Enterprise, Cisco, Farmers Insurance, The General
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Katalon Studio, Worksoft and others in Test Automation Tools. Updated: August 2026.
911,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.