Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Oracle Application Testing Suite vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Oracle Application Testing ...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
14th
Average Rating
7.8
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (8th), Load Testing Tools (7th)
SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
7th
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
74
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Oracle Application Testing Suite is 1.4%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 4.8%, down from 6.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Rishabh-Sharma - PeerSpot reviewer
Jan 27, 2023
Requires little maintenance, is stable, and easy to deploy
Oracle Application Testing Suite can improve by covering more browsers as compared to other solutions because they're considering the Edge browser as well, but the solution is working on different Windows operating platforms. For example, in our current Windows 2012 R2 server, if I want to automate the Edge browser, I need to upgrade that particular Windows to Windows 10.1 or some other Windows platform, because it's not supported in Windows 2012 feature. That is an issue. If cross-browsers can be incorporated, then support should be provided. There should be a single operating system where everything can be incorporated. I have faced issues with some indexing items. For example, the solution is able to derive some properties from the screen, such as button locations or text locations, but there are some elements, for example, unnamed buttons or text, where there is no name or ID or any other identifying information. Indexing doesn't always work, and we have to go to those elements manually and inspect them to determine their class, and then input that information into the system.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Jun 25, 2024
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
We have applications related to power plants, and we use the solution to do 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…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We do not need a separate test management tool because we have there is a management tool. That is a very good feature. Secondly, it has an inbuilt performance testing tool, which is on flash. It has very good record and playback features as well. And apart from that, there is a good inspection feature. Since it comes with all of the packages, it's very good."
"The function test feature is valuable."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"The graphics are very intuitive and it's very easy to get scale of development."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite's most valuable feature is it works very smoothly with all Oracle Java-based applications."
"I like the functional testing. There's a product inside OATS called OLT, Oracle Load Testing. You can do the load testing without depending on any other tool"
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"We like that we don't need a separate management tool. This is a good feature. It also has an inbuilt performance tool which is on Flash. It has very good record and playback feature as well. The inspection tool is also very good. Overall, since it comes with all the three packages, it's very good."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"The most valuable features of the SmartBear TestComplete are self-healing, they reduce the maintenance required. The different languages SmartBear TestComplete supports are good because some of our libraries are written in Python, JavaScript, and C#. It's very easy to put them all under one project and use them. The are other features that SmartBear TestComplete has but the competition widely has them as well."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
 

Cons

"To provide test automation support for other products like SAP, Windows and Java Applications when it comes to Functional Test Automation testing."
"The dashboards need to be simplified and made more user-friendly."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite could improve by offering desktop-based application automation. It is lacking in this area at the moment."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite does encounter some lag. When I am trying to record something, the tool gets stuck."
"I have faced issues with some indexing items."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"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."
"The learning curve of the solution's user interface is a little high for new users."
"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."
"In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"The integration tools could be better."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Customers need to negotiate properly to get the tool at a lower price."
"The complete package, including load testing and performance analysis, has a licensing fee."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"ORACLE is giving at a very competitive rates to all its customers, and its a simple licensing process."
"The price of the Oracle Application Testing Suite is not expensive. It is less expensive than other solutions."
"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."
"Our ROI is about $10,000 a year."
"We have a TestComplete 12 license."
"The solution's pricing is too high."
"SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
"The product is becoming more and more expensive."
"The price of SmartBear TestComplete could be less. The main challenge is when it comes to node-locked. They should use a subscription model, such as a monthly-based subscription or, a quarterly-based subscription. Their floating license is very expensive, and this high price should be reduced or provide, at a minimum, a subscription model."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Oracle Application Testing Suite?
We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Oracle Application Testing Suite?
The speed of setup and deployment of this solution is based on the size and complexity of the organization implementing it. Depending on the size and complexity of the organization, this could take...
What needs improvement with Oracle Application Testing Suite?
We would like to see the instruction documentation made into video or audio formats, to help new users get used to the modules. We would also like the customization of reports within the solution t...
What do you like most about SmartBear TestComplete?
TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
The solution's pricing is too high. On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing nine and a half out of ten.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
The learning curve of the solution's user interface is a little high for new users.
 

Also Known As

OATS
No data available
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Comic Relief UK, The Forestry Commission, TAFE SA, Silentnight Group, Victorian Department of Primary Industries
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about Oracle Application Testing Suite vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.