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

PractiTest vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

 

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

PractiTest
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (21st), Test Management Tools (18th)
SmartBear TestComplete
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (9th), Regression Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Application Lifecycle Management solutions, they serve different purposes. PractiTest is designed for Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites and holds a mindshare of 0.4%, up 0.2% compared to last year.
SmartBear TestComplete, on the other hand, focuses on Test Automation Tools, holds 5.9% mindshare, down 7.4% since last year.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

DC
Flexible and intuitive with easy reporting, and good support that is instantly available through chat
It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different bug tracking tools at the same time. This is not an issue if you only have one bug tracker but we can potentially use different tools for different projects. As an example, if you connect PractiTest to Jira for one project, that's the one you have to use for all projects. We had a requirement to connect with Jira for one project, and a different tool for another, project but it was unable to accommodate that unfortunately. I would therefore like to see it easier to integrate with bug tracking tools at project level which would give each project the opportunity to use a different bug tracker if required.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
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 most valuable feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"Selenium integration."
"SmartBear TestComplete performs some self-healing and has a feature called OCR (optical character recognition)."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"The solution is mainly stable."
"The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts."
 

Cons

"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different tracking tools."
"In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical."
"In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"Headless testing would be a big improvement."
"The integration tools could be better."
"Product is not stable enough and it crashes often."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is probably in the middle, it's not the cheapest but it's not the most expensive."
"It is approximately $6,000 a year."
"SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool."
"The solution's licensing cost has increased because it has moved to some new SLM-based licenses."
"We have a TestComplete 12 license."
"The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
"The solution is around $1500. Some are perpetual licenses, and some get a yearly report card."
"The solution's pricing is too high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
849,190 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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?
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...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Canonical, SAS, Amobee, Play Buzz, Abbott, Aternity, Zerto, Freeman
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Updated: April 2025.
849,190 professionals have used our research since 2012.