SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

It allows us to test both desktop and web applications. This is a very important feature for system integration tests, as we develop desktop applications, web applications, and a Web API using the same database.

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).

In fact, this is an issue regarding how to read the test log in MHT format generated by TestComplete.

We know a test log is always generated automatically by test tool after executing a test. TestComplete provides a standard IDE (Integrated Development Environment) interface for user to review the test log. We don’t have issue reviewing the test log within TestComplete regardless how big the test log is (Our test log record the test running for more than two days without stopping. The test log extension name is .tcLogs and the size of total test log is very big over 2.5 GB).

TestComplete also provides a function for the user to export the log into MHT format file via manually selecting each test log after complete a test or dynamically exporting the test log during test executing via command in test script. The MHT log file can be opened by IE. However, if the MHT file is a little big, such as >200M, the user could experience obvious performance issues. It takes a very long time for IE to open this file because IE loads all the contents into one page which could finally eat up all your system memory. I tried to find another tool to open the big MHT log file, but no luck. Even executing a small test (running for one to two hours), the MHT log file size can easily reach to 200M, if a screenshot is included, for example. Normally, each one round of our regression test runs for 30-48 hours. It is impossible for us to open the big MHT log file as the system runs out of memory and an error appears definitely after hours of waiting to just open this file by IE.

TestExecute is a small tool to just execute the test developed by TestComplete. But TestExecute only generates MHT log file rather than TCLOGS file. Obviously, we cannot open the MHT log file if it is very big. So we gave up using TestExectue and export MHT log file function in TestCompelete at all.

We have to buy six individual full license of TestComplete to run and review the test.

We have used this for nine years.

Overall, TestComplete is quite stable. But the only issue affecting me is if TestComplete is terminated unexpectedly while test is still running (such as, terminating TestComplete without stopping the test first, window restarting, or shutting down unexpectedly), user could lose all the logs.

There were no issues with scalability, but it may have a performance issue with expansion.

Technical support is excellent.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The product is becoming more and more expensive. There are two types of licenses: locked and float. Locked license save more, but can only be used in a physical machine. Float licenses can be run in virtual machines.

QTP, was very expensive when compared to TestComplete, many years ago.

This tool is very easy to use and very powerful. It has a short test development circle and good technical support. There is an expensive license, but it could save more, as testers may spend more time achieving a certain test goal if using an Open Source tool. You need to consider the testers' script experience and the company’s budget to choose the right tool.

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.

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 work as a tester for a company.

I use TestComplete in SmartBear and the open-source version of SoapUI.

We use TestComplete for our regression test case distribution.

For Windows application automation, we use TestComplete, and for API automation, we use SoapUI. When compared to TestComple, I find SoapUI to be extremely useful.

TestComplete is extremely efficient when it comes to scripting. In a single day, you can automate more than 100 test cases. If you write the code, Selenium allows you to automate only 10 to 15 cases.

When compared to other tools, it is very simple.

When we try to automate and keep the same script in a few cases, it fails due to control changes. You must have a session open when running in TestComplete, otherwise, your script will fail.

When compared to the competitors, it is a little more complicated.

During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly.

Our frequency control IDs are getting changed. For example, if I develop a script in one mission and then try to deploy the same script in another mission, the script will not be executed properly.

Selenium is more efficient than TestComplete at the point of execution, in my experience.

In terms of execution, attempting to run a script from multiple missions will result in the script being deployed and failing to work in some of the missions.

It would be beneficial if they provided a new open-source library that could be integrated with Selenium. Currently, we must create Java bridge libraries in order to integrate with Selenium. It would be preferable to have a simple APA for consuming the Selenium feature console.

I have been working with SmartBear TestComplete for two years.

We've also phased TestComplete, a slightly lower version, and are looking into TestComplete 14, using the trial version.

This solution is used by myself and two other members of the same team.

I have not contacted technical support because I am using the trial version.

The initial setup is very easy.

We have a TestComplete 12 license.

I would rate SmartBear TestComplete a six out of ten.

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.

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.

I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers.

We are consultants. So we simply provide an automated solution to a client, then move on. We don’t use the product in our day to day work.

The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT.

In UFT, using descriptive programming for a web page you can use.

Browser(description).WebList(description).Select anything.

Regardless of how many panes, frames, panels etc are in the hierarchy before the Weblist object.

But in Smartbear you have to store every frame, panel etc.

So that if you didn’t use the ‘Alias’ functionality you would have an object description miles long.

But even having to use the Alias, you still have to add each and every frame, panel, etc. whereas in UFT you can just use page.object and it will find the object on the page (as long as you’re using unique descriptions!!) without worrying about frames, panes, etc.

We have used this solution for about two years.

I did not encounter any issues with stability.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

I didn’t require any technical support.

I routinely use SmartBear, UFT, and SilkTest. I fit the application used to whatever my client requires.

The initial setup was very straightforward. Even the mobile testing side was easy to setup

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. It makes it an excellent cost saving alternative.

I use several tools.

As with all tools, verify that it will do what you need for a reasonable price.

Desktop and web application support. TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications. It's an amazing feature for companies that want to automate UI tests on each application built in-house.

Before using TestComplete on our projects, we used to use a lot of tools to automate our applications, such as Sikuli or Java Robot to automate desktop apps, and Selenium WebDriver for web apps. After starting to use TestComplete, we were able to centralize all scripts in only one tool and technology.

TestComplete gives support to do requests to a SOAP web service but has no support to do HTTP requests on Restful services. In a microservice world, this is a big flaw. Another thing is that the cross-browser support has a lot of different traits between browsers. It should be improved.

Five years.

Sometimes the app crashes during test execution based on the amount of code that is running. It's recommended that you modularize scripts, but that is not a justification for not being more stable.

TestComplete has a test executor app that can be used in a distributed test execution environment. The problem is that this is a paid product. Thus, it was pretty expensive to scale this architecture.

Eight out of 10.

I used to use HPE QTP but TestComplete has the same features, low price, and support for handling a lot of stacks. In addition, I don't need to use hundreds of plugins.

To start working with TestComplete, we only needed to install (next, next, finish flow) and then start using it. There are some configurations to do to help increase efficiency, but I do not consider that more than a nice-to-have.

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. If they will each use it all the time, buy licences for all of them.

No, I did a PoC and discovered the pros and cons.

Do a PoC and try to understand if TestComplete fits your context and requirements. Use the script-driven approach instead keyword-driven, because the former is more efficient.