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

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
24th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
11th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
24th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (14th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 5.0%, up from 4.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.7%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
SmartBear TestComplete5.0%
Telerik Test Studio1.7%
Other93.3%
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

"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"The most valuable feature of SmartBear TestComplete for me is the image comparison functionality; it quickly detects any changes in the UI."
"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 helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"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."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
 

Cons

"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"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."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"The solution’s customer support should be improved."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"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."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 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."
"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
"The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP."
"The pricing is pretty reasonable."
"It is approximately $6,000 a year."
"The product is becoming more and more expensive."
"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.
883,824 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
5%
Manufacturing Company
19%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
9%
University
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise20
Large Enterprise32
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 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...
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: February 2026.
883,824 professionals have used our research since 2012.