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
7th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
74
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (6th)
TestingWhiz
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
26th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
14th
Average Rating
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 4.8%, down from 6.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of TestingWhiz is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Jun 25, 2024
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
We have applications related to power plants, and we use the solution to do 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…
VS
Oct 16, 2024
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

"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."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"TestingWhiz is a low code, no code tool with integration facilities, such as with Jira, and can be used over the cloud."
 

Cons

"The pricing is the constraint."
"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 solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"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."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult."
"Some features need to be implemented based on customer customization requests, which are currently not available."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The option we chose was around $2,000 USD."
"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 a little above average — it could be lower."
"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."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool."
"It costs a few hundred per year, but I am not sure. It is not at all expensive as compared to other tools."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
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?
The solution's pricing is too high. On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing nine and a half out of ten.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
The learning curve of the solution's user interface is a little high for new users.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

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: October 2024.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.