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

Qt Squish vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Qt Squish
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
9th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
6th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
75
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (7th), Regression Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Qt Squish is 3.0%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 6.5%, down from 7.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

AnirbanSarkar - PeerSpot reviewer
Seamless functionality, plug-and-play installation, and highly reliable
There had been a lot of improvements with froglogic Squish already. There were some scenarios in which this particular solution was available in different flavors. They have pulled everything together in one solution. There were some monitoring systems, which were missing out from the solution earlier. They have a centralized dashboard for monitoring the test cases and their execution. It's a full-blown solution, there are not many glitches in terms of something missing out of the package. The froglogic Squish solution is only handling GUI regression testing, this is its forte. However, a lot of clients are looking into performance testing associated with it. If a performance testing capability can be added as a part of it, this would bring great value. froglogic Squish has a code coverage solution and they have done a pretty good job on it. The penetration testing could be added as a separate module, this would be beneficial.
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

"I find it very user-friendly and easy to start working with. The main benefit for me is that it allows testing applications developed in the Qt language. This capability makes Squish a game-changer, as it's the only tool I've found that enables automation for applications written in Qt. I appreciate three main aspects. Firstly, the documentation is excellent. Secondly, I value the way the tool efficiently locates elements during testing. These are the two aspects I particularly like."
"I like the dashboard. It's virtual, and you can see the customer results. I can do it at night and in the morning. I think it also automatically emails results."
"The initial setup process is straightforward."
"This product can work with QT applications and cross-cut from them on Windows or Mac."
"Squish is integrated with Qt, which enables us to test the user interface effectively."
"froglogic Squish is one of the most desired solutions if you are having a Qt as a framework and if you are looking at GUI regression testing. froglogic is a part of Qt as a company."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"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."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"The integration with various tools is important."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"SmartBear TestComplete performs some self-healing and has a feature called OCR (optical character recognition)."
 

Cons

"I'm relatively new to Squish, so I'm not familiar with all its pros and cons. Currently, I haven't identified any specific improvements. However, one feature I miss is Git integration within the tool. In my previous experience with Selenium and Python in PyCharm, it was straightforward to create and review changes before pushing them. I haven't found a similar option in Squish, and having an integrated tool for managing conflicts would be beneficial in certain scenarios where collaboration is involved."
"We encountered issues with the embedded environment and building for the Qt version."
"There had been a lot of improvements with froglogic Squish already. There were some scenarios in which this particular solution was available in different flavors. They have pulled everything together in one solution. There were some monitoring systems, which were missing out from the solution earlier. They have a centralized dashboard for monitoring the test cases and their execution. It's a full-blown solution, there are not many glitches in terms of something missing out of the package."
"The platform could be improved by implementing some basic functionalities that are frequently used, such as login procedures and screen handling when multiple screens are used at the workplace."
"ID could be improved with suggestions of names, variables or class."
"The price 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."
"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."
"In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult."
"We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price could be better. I believe each developer license costs about 6000 or 7000 Euros per year."
"It is expensive."
"The platform is highly-priced."
"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."
"SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool."
"The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
"The solution's licensing cost has increased because it has moved to some new SLM-based licenses."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"The pricing is pretty reasonable."
"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."
"The solution is around $1500. Some are perpetual licenses, and some get a yearly report card."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Computer Software Company
17%
Healthcare Company
7%
Transportation Company
6%
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for froglogic Squish?
Qt and Squish are considered to be on the expensive side compared to other software development tools. The pricing is not very flexible, which has been noted as a concern.
What needs improvement with froglogic Squish?
We encountered issues with the embedded environment and building for the Qt version. Upgrading Qt and Squish can be annoying and would be better if Squish were more integrated with Qt, to ease the ...
What is your primary use case for froglogic Squish?
We use Qt Squish primarily for test automation in our embedded systems. While I configure it and set it up, another person uses it for testing. We also use Squish integrated with Qt, a framework fo...
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 don't know much about the pricing, however, I think it's cheaper.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing.
 

Also Known As

froglogic Squish
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Google, Nokia, Pfizer, Siemens, Synopsys, Airbus, Boeing, Mercedes Benz, Disney, Shell, Reuters, Vodafone, XILINX, GE, Ericsson
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about Qt Squish vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.