SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

I use SmartBear TestComplete to compare different tools. I perform many of the same actions I do with UFT to gather information about which tool is better for our needs. Additionally, we use it for web application, desktop application, and mobile applications.

It saves time with efficiency and automations, similar to UFT.

The integration with various tools is important. It integrates with Cucumber and behavior-driven development tools, as well as open-source tools like Appium for mobile testing.

The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing.

I use TestComplete more than Cucumber, and it is my first experience with a SmartBear tool.

I didn't find any bugs. The solution is stable. 

TestComplete is scalable.

SmartBear has a very important company behind them, ensuring good support. I would rate their support a ten out of ten.

Positive

I have experience with UFT, which I compare with SmartBear TestComplete.

The initial setup is very easy and straightforward.

I don't have a lot of information for that. Maybe another person could.

I don't know much about the pricing, however, I think it's cheaper.

I recommend SmartBear TestComplete to anyone that needs to document their processes.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for our automating our test scripts.

The record and replay aspects of the solution are quite useful for people. With them, you don't have to write any scripts. Basically, you can record your actions and play them back later.

The initial setup is very easy.

Right now, the product only supports Windows. We'd like to see it work with other operating systems as well. They should definitely be working with iOS, for example. That should just be a given.

The product is quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is quite good. If a company would like to expand it, it can do so. 

Technical support is excellent. If you reach out to them, they will get back to you within 24 hours. 

Positive

The implementation process is hassle-free. I'd rate it a five out of five in terms of ease of installation. It's a very simple process. 

The amount of maintenance needed probably depends upon your project and the number of test scripts you have. It is based on the complexity of your application. If it is straightforward, one person can manage it once it is automated. A larger amount of scripts may require a bit more maintenance, however, something that is low to medium is easy to handle. 

While it's my understanding that clients don't seem bothered by the pricing, I can't speak to the actual cost of the product. That said, it is, as far as I know, competitive in the market.

I'm a reseller. I'm not coming from any organization as a consumer who is consuming TestComplete features. Actually, I'm a solution architect who is demonstrating the features of the tool to others.

While I tend to look at client requirements before recommending any solution if it did fit in with a client's need I would definitely recommend the product. It's very reliable. 

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. While there are some gaps, we've been mostly happy with its capabilities. 

Valuable for us is the ability to identify objects by using Find methods. I am able to process whole pages at once rather than doing everything one by one.

Using object spy can be slow sometimes and seems to require a lot of resources.

We have been using the solution for six months.

The solution freezes sometimes, but not very often. Sometimes it doesn’t find any objects from the browser and needs to restart the browser or the whole machine. This happens with Internet Explorer.

It is very difficult to have multiple developers when using Name Mapping. You can’t merge all the files and this creates conflicts.

It scales better for multiple users when using pure script, which reduces the amount of files that cannot be merged.

Support calls were helpful at the beginning, and I haven’t used the support since then.

We used TestPlant eggPlant and are still using it for thick clients where objects are not available. The development speed for TestComplete is faster and more reliable when objects can be seen.

It is easy to install and use.

We went through quite a few of them. This product seemed best for usability and recording features.

Test the trial, then go for it. Keyword tests seem viable for straightforward test cases, but to create dynamic architecture you might want to stick only with scripts and drop Name Mapping.

Keyword tests are easy and fast to record, but adding complex logic for them can be tricky and time consuming.

1. Object Browser is the most powerful feature. This has helped me tear apart every single component of the application under test. It's an awesome feature.
2. Test Editor and Debugger: This has really made my life easy as I can trace memory and stack values very easily.
3. Data driven testing has been made very easy. I am comfortable using any sort of backend to support data driven testing such as Excel/databases/etc.
4. It supports using third party DLLs has given me an edge on several occasions.

Previously, we had to wait for the end-of-sprint to make a stable release. Now, rolling out a release is not a problem. As soon as a build is deployed, the scheduler quickly executes User Acceptance Tests, and verifies that the build is fit to be delivered to the clients.

1. Support for working with COM and ActiveX objects should be more powerful. Currently we have to drill down a lot to find solutions for certain tasks.
2. Cross browser testing is a bit complex when it comes to scripting. Developers have to take care with it care, or else issues may arise at deployment time.

Overall, I have used this for more than two years, including v1040. Currently I have been using it hands on for the last year.

There often are issues with web test execution. Web pages often do not load on the first attempt.

Customer server is absolutely robust. The team respond within 12 hours.

I never needed to use paid technical support as their forum is extremely helpful. The community members respond to issues within 24 hours. It’s really amazing that within the past twelve months, I have never had a technical question I asked remain unanswered.

I am an expert on the following:

• Selenium RC and Servers/Java - but this has multiple limitations
• IBM Rational Functional Tester - it's expensive, and not as powerful as TestComplete
• AppPerfect - is not in competition with any of the above, it’s pathetic

It was straightforward. Both the node locked and floating licenses were easily deployed, and now the whole team is using it.

At one point, we had to update the hardware of the servers where the licenses were deployed, and this was very easy. We just disabled the licenses from the account and deployed them onto the upgraded servers.

I did it myself in-house. It’s very simple. No rocket science needed. Just read the manuals and you can do it.

We are saving a lot in terms of client satisfaction. We are not yet in a phase where we have savings in terms of a reduced QA team, but our clients are happy that they get bug free software. Moreover, our testing team spends more time testing new features, and we are confident enough at build roll out time that all previously developed modules are stable.

It is useful for functional testing, testing backend database, and frontend user interface.

I am using the latest version.

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.

It is a very easy-to-use tool. You don't have to be an expert in a specific syntax. You can just use graphical logic. If needed, it also allows you to apply some code. It is very useful from all perspectives.

There could be API interfaces with this tool.

I have been using this solution for about 10 years.

It is very stable. Their tests are running fluently.

We have three testers.

I have contacted them, and I got a very fast response and solution. Their support team was very helpful. Every question was answered professionally and quickly.

The help guides are also very useful.

I had used a browser tool.

It is very easy to install. It took about one hour to deploy the tool.

I implemented it with the guidance and help of the support team. It can be done by the testing team without any help from a consultant.

It costs a few hundred per year, but I am not sure. It is not at all expensive as compared to other tools.

I would recommend this tool. You don't have to be an expert in this tool to start using it. You can start by using the help guides. It is very easy to understand how to make it work.

I would rate SmartBear TestComplete a 10 out of 10.

SmartBear TestComplete is a web mobile automation solution. SmartBear TestComplete is a low-code automation tool that records and replays your user actions.

SmartBear TestComplete performs some self-healing and has a feature called OCR (optical character recognition). The solution supports JavaScript.

The learning curve of the solution's user interface is a little high for new users.

I have been using SmartBear TestComplete for three years.

We haven’t faced any issues with the solution’s stability.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

SmartBear TestComplete is a scalable solution. SmartBear TestComplete is more suited for enterprise businesses.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten for scalability.

The solution's technical support takes a longer time to respond.

Neutral

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a seven out of ten.

The solution's deployment hardly takes six to seven minutes, sometimes even less than five minutes.

The solution has sped up automation for us.

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.

The solution handles application changes very well. You can add or modify your existing test cases, which is a good feature. One of the solution's major AI capabilities is self-healing, which supports my test activity. The solution's AI capability increased the accuracy of the element identifier.

I would recommend the solution to other users. Besides the cost, SmartBear TestComplete is a good solution for web and mobile.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use this solution to log into a website, do MFA authentication and to verify test cases.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment. It also frees up manual testing of sites and manual testing of any of our applications. This frees up about 40 hours a week.

This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail. In comparison, Leapwork allows us that visibility and showed us exactly where it failed more easily.

This is a stable solution.

Tech support that we have received so far is pretty good. We haven't really needed to use a lot of their tech support.

Positive

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

We evaluated both Leapwork and SmartBear, along with other automated testing solutions. Both products are really good. I like Leapwork because it is easier for people to use but the price was too high per user per year. SmartBear is easy to use as well but Leapwork is not a no-code solution, whereas SmartBear is a low-code solution.

We went with SmartBear mainly because we're also using SmartBear Swagger. We're already utilizing some of SmartBear's technology in-house and its cost per license per year is lower. That was the key factor in why we decided to go with SmartBear over LeapWork.

The advice that I would give would be to make sure you dedicate some time and resources to laying out how you want to structure the test cases first.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

I use this solution for functionality testing, API testing, and performance testing.

We are moving away from this solution to use Eggplant Functional.

The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools.

The SoapUI tools are very good, as well as cross-browser capabilities.

The GUI is very good.

There is a problem with usability because the speed decreases, which could be an issue with scalability because of too many hits on the site. It depends on how distributed their systems are, and how well they can handle multiple connections.

The artificial intelligence needs to be improved.

I have been using this solution for between six and twelve months.

This is a good product in terms of stability.

The technical support for this solution is always available. They have an online chat that is quick.

The initial setup of this solution was quite smooth. It was not complicated and within a week it was working. It did not take long.

We performed the implementation in-house.

This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team.

We have also been using Eggplant Functional, and the decision has been made to move forward with that solution, instead of SmartBear. It is not for technical reasons. I also find Eggplant to be a little bit pricey.

This product is quite mature, able to compete with other products in the market, and I would highly recommend it. Overall, we're very pleased with the implementation.

My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is to do a PoC and try this solution out. They can always reach out to me for help, and I can assist.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this solution is that there is a lot of hard work going on behind the scenes with this tool, to make each customer's journey easier. This tool is simple to implement and easy to use. If you don't have much time to do a lot of reading then it is still easy to take each case and adopt it quickly.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.