No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

SmartBear TestComplete vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

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

SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
8th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
5th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
6th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Telerik Test Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
23rd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
12th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
23rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 4.9%, up from 4.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.9%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
SmartBear TestComplete4.9%
Telerik Test Studio1.9%
Other93.2%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Test Lead at Emerson
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.
Raghvendra Jyothi - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager Project Management at Capgemini
Very good performance and load testing capabilities
There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution is mainly stable."
"We were able to run tests on daily promotions of software so all software was tested every night, making any bugs instantly visible the next morning."
"For us, the automated test farm of 20 virtual machines for execution, 20 TestComplete licenses and 20 automated testers are doing the job of 100 manual testers."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"I used different solution afterwards and I can say there is no other product with such great flexibility."
"Mainly, when we did an evaluation and comparison, TestComplete had two big advantages - Good technology support Relatively low price in comparison to other vendor tools"
"Test items, project variables helps in managing automation suite and scheduling execution."
"The solution has saved a lot of human resources by running full regression tests prior to each release, and over the years many major bugs have been detected by the tool, saving us the big expense of fixing problems after a release."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"The object repository is the most valuable feature, as different elements can be identified and reutilized through the repository across other scripts, and the product has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
 

Cons

"One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git."
"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 way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"It is expensive, and it is difficult to acquire living in Brazil. They should facilitate this."
"A major part of the product that needs improvement is the licenser."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"We have not seen a return on investment yet."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"The first time I customized the solution, it was quite challenging."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It costs a few hundred per year, but I am not sure. It is not at all expensive as compared to other tools."
"The product is becoming more and more expensive."
"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 licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
"SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool."
"It comes with a high cost."
"The pricing is pretty reasonable."
"Our ROI is about $10,000 a year."
"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
902,495 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Construction Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise19
Large Enterprise32
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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...
What is your primary use case for SmartBear TestComplete?
We are using SmartBear TestComplete ( /products/smartbear-testcomplete-reviews ) for automation over applications.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T
Find out what your peers are saying about SmartBear TestComplete vs. Telerik Test Studio and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,495 professionals have used our research since 2012.