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
27th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
13th
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 August 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 4.7%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.8%, 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 TestComplete4.7%
Telerik Test Studio1.8%
Other93.5%
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

"Using TestComplete I was able to immediately (after installation) begin coding regression tests for available functionality."
"Test items, project variables helps in managing automation suite and scheduling execution."
"The most valuable feature of SmartBear TestComplete for me is the image comparison functionality; it quickly detects any changes in the UI."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"It helped to automate all the possible functional test cases which I previously used to do by manual testing."
"TestComplete is a good product compared to other options that are on the market."
"This application is helping a lot in regression testing."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"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."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"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."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
 

Cons

"The tool sometimes seems a little unstable and crashes sometimes on Windows 10."
"One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git."
"A major part of the product that needs improvement is the licenser."
"Sometimes the app crashes during test execution based on the amount of code that is running."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing."
"Sometimes, TestComplete crashes when attempting to delete over 10 logs."
"From my understanding, the product has changed significantly since v5 was released. I don’t know that it has necessarily improved, for my needs."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"The first time I customized the solution, it was quite challenging."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"We have not seen a return on investment yet."
"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."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It comes with a high cost."
"The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"Overall, for us, the cost of the TestComplete platform and the three extra modules is around $8,000."
"The solution's licensing cost has increased because it has moved to some new SLM-based licenses."
"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."
"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."
"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 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.
910,479 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
10%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
University
7%
 

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: July 2026.
910,479 professionals have used our research since 2012.