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

SmartBear TestComplete vs TestingWhiz comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
5th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
75
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (5th)
TestingWhiz
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
25th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
14th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
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 TestingWhiz is 0.2%, up from 0.2% 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.
VS
Low code features and good customization but needs more customer-requested features
We utilized the solution to showcase our capabilities to customers or clients, and demonstrate how it can save money and achieve a return on investment through automation The organization was able to provide customers with business solutions by giving demos of various tools, assisting in securing…

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 great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"The ease-of-use and quality of the overall product are above average."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"The product has many features."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"TestingWhiz is a low code, no code tool with integration facilities, such as with Jira, and can be used over the cloud."
 

Cons

"In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical."
"Error handling features in the tool are a little limited."
"The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing."
"The learning curve of the solution's user interface is a little high for new users."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing)."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"Some features need to be implemented based on customer customization requests, which are currently not available."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
"SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool."
"The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"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 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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 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%
No data available
 

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.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for TestingWhiz?
It is cheaper compared to other tools. The tool is web-based with various licenses, including professional and enterprise editions.
What needs improvement with TestingWhiz?
Some features need to be implemented based on customer customization requests, which are currently not available. Additionally, there is a need to improve the handling of less critical issues which...
What is your primary use case for TestingWhiz?
We utilized the solution to showcase our capabilities to customers or clients, and demonstrate how it can save money and achieve a return on investment through automation.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Verizon, IBM, Symantec, VMware, Hyundai, Choice Hotels, Intel, Autodesk, Frost
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, BrowserStack and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: December 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.