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

ReadyAPI vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

ReadyAPI
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
7.8
Number of Reviews
34
Ranking in other categories
Performance 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 ReadyAPI is 1.4%, down from 2.1% 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

SandeepSingh9 - PeerSpot reviewer
Sep 23, 2022
Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper
One of the features of ReadyAPI that's worth mentioning is that it allows you to parameterize. I'm working with more than two hundred resources, so I don't have to go and make a small change at each point every time. I have the option to just parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere. Another valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it provides a customized environment. In my company, you work in different environments, such as QA, UAT, and LT, so the URLs for every environment are different. In ReadyAPI, you can customize your environment, set it up, then start working on it. Another feature worth mentioning that's offered in ReadyAPI is automating your test value as the tool allows Groovy scripting. In your test case, you can use a Groovy script that says that in a particular test case, you have ten resources, but you just want to exhibit five and that you don't want to exhibit the remaining five. You can write a small Groovy script that lets you execute just five resources out of the ten resources. I also like that ReadyAPI allows you to read the data from CFC and Excel. It also allows you to create or customize your data, but that only works at a certain point because every application has its specific data. ReadyAPI cannot generate every data, but when I'm posting and I want to generate a random name, such as a first name, I can do it in ReadyAPI. The tool also has many different features which I find valuable, including Git integration.
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

"The initial setup is straightforward."
"Reporting is more robust than other products because test reports can be exported in multiple ways."
"A single platform for functional testing, load testing security, and service actualization."
"One of the features of ReadyAPI that's worth mentioning is that it allows you to parameterize. I'm working with more than two hundred resources, so I don't have to go and make a small change at each point every time. I have the option to just parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere. Another valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it provides a customized environment. In my company, you work in different environments, such as QA, UAT, and LT, so the URLs for every environment are different. In ReadyAPI, you can customize your environment, set it up, then start working on it. Another feature worth mentioning that's offered in ReadyAPI is automating your test value as the tool allows Groovy scripting. In your test case, you can use a Groovy script that says that in a particular test case, you have ten resources, but you just want to exhibit five and that you don't want to exhibit the remaining five. You can write a small Groovy script that lets you execute just five resources out of the ten resources. I also like that ReadyAPI allows you to read the data from CFC and Excel. It also allows you to create or customize your data, but that only works at a certain point because every application has its specific data. ReadyAPI cannot generate every data, but when I'm posting and I want to generate a random name, such as a first name, I can do it in ReadyAPI. The tool also has many different features which I find valuable, including Git integration."
"The feature that allows you to import an API collection or a project is valuable."
"It has the ability to combine it with different CI/CD tools."
"It can create stress tests very fast, and some features help you do it fast."
"The most valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it is user-friendly."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"Selenium integration."
"In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"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 very easy to maintain tests with this tool. It covers all necessary items in the test plan. The most painful item in testing is maintenance. When changes occur, the tests should be maintained."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
 

Cons

"The UI should be flexible. Currently, the UI isn't."
"The reporting is not very robust and needs to be improved."
"What needs improvement in ReadyAPI is its load testing feature because there was a hiccup when my team performed some load testing on the tool. My team had meetings with the ReadyAPI team and tried to get that issue fixed, but it still hasn't improved. This is a shortcoming of the tool, especially when you compare it with HP LoadRunner."
"There are lots of options within the solution, however they are not upfront or user-friendly."
"The solution is made up of multiple tools, and the one additional feature we'd like to have is load testing."
"ReadyAPI could improve by adding a conversion tool from one file type to another. Import support for multiple file types would be beneficial."
"They have performance testing also. However, it's not that great."
"It is challenging doing upgrades and patches because sometimes the environmental variables or suits in the projects get erased."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"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."
"The learning curve of the solution's user interface is a little high for new users."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"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 integration tools could be better."
"At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has reduced the challenges to some extent, as we can now utilize OCR if the normal method doesn't work. Nevertheless, there is still significant potential for improvement in TestComplete's ability to identify various object elements. I don't have any specific concerns to mention. I have observed significant improvements in TestComplete over the past few years, especially in its support for highly dynamic object elements used in products like Salesforce Dynamics 365. In earlier versions, there were numerous challenges, but the current version is far superior to its predecessors."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is dynamically priced so you only pay for what you use."
"We pay $3,000 annually for a floating license. actually. That allows another person from my company to use it as well. It's a cloud-based license."
"It costs approximately $200 000 Taiwan Dollars for three years."
"There are costs in addition to the licensing fee. For example, if you want to add the load testing you would pay more."
"We have approximately 12 licenses in place. There are other solutions that are more expensive than ReadyAPI that have more features, but if the scope of the project is limited to SOAP and REST service, then this is the best option."
"This is a cheap solution when you consider the money that will be saved in testing."
"The pricing is very competitive."
"The price of the solution has been fine."
"Buy modules on demand. If you have a four-person team and they will each automate tests only 25% of the time, it's better to buy a floating licence and share the tool during the work day."
"Our ROI is about $10,000 a year."
"The product is becoming more and more expensive."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
"The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
"SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool."
"The solution's pricing is too high."
"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
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
17%
Insurance Company
8%
Government
6%
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 ReadyAPI?
The performance testing capabilities are very good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ReadyAPI?
The pricing is very competitive. It has a good impact on our time-to-market metrics. We have the complete SmartBear environment. The single cost for all the services makes it easier.
What needs improvement with ReadyAPI?
The vendor conducts webinars. They must do it more, though. The solution must update SmartBear Academy. The content on ReadyAPI in SmartBear Academy is outdated.
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

Ready API
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Healthcare Data Solutions (HDS)
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about ReadyAPI vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.