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

SmartBear TestComplete vs SmartBear TestLeft comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
75
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (5th)
SmartBear TestLeft
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
34th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 4.8%, down from 5.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestLeft is 0.4%, down from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
reviewer1378161 - PeerSpot reviewer
Simple to set up and the test execute feature is helpful, but the cost could be reduced
Our primary use case is Point of Sale (POS) testing The most valuable features are test executor and development. TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved. We have been using SmartBear TestLeft for the past month. Stability-wise, TestLeft is…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"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."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"The most valuable features are test executor and development."
 

Cons

"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 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."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"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 licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our ROI is about $10,000 a year."
"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."
"The solution's licensing cost has increased because it has moved to some new SLM-based licenses."
"The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP."
"Overall, for us, the cost of the TestComplete platform and the three extra modules is around $8,000."
"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."
"The pricing is pretty reasonable."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"The cost should be reduced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
30%
Financial Services Firm
22%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
American Red Cross, CISCO, HONDA, ADIDAS, TBC bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, BrowserStack and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: December 2024.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.