SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

The artificial intelligence aspect is very useful for us.

Scaling to a cloud environment is very easy.

Scriptless approaches are very flexible compared to other scriptless automation tools.

The object identification for legacy applications that are very old can still be automated by TestComplete. The object identification is very powerful.

The stability has been good in the latest versions.

Technical support is quite helpful and they have a good community you can look for answers in as well.

The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy.

We have something called Name Mapping in TestComplete it is the only Name Mapping that is available for TestComplete. If they allowed two Name Mappings, or run Name Mapping in run time, that would be ideal.

TestComplete has its own XPath Identifiers. It auto-identifies the XPath of the application. If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better. 

Code analysis would be helpful. If they could give us a code analysis feature, similar to something called Ranorex Coach (which will give us auto-suggestions of how to use certain things), that would be ideal. In Tricentis, they have a feature whenever we identify an element or automate an element, they give a unique identification element that the tool notes when we map. Here, we don't have a feature that can mention the unique object identification kind of stuff. We need to highlight it on screen and then we need to check it. 

I've used this product for more than eight years or so.  It's been a while. 

The solution is now very stable. Four or five versions previous to the latest, if I recall, in version 10 or 11, it had some issues. However, now it is highly stable. Currently, there's nothing to worry about in terms of the stability of the product.

The solution can be scaled across the cloud. It can be scaled using the automation framework.

Technical support is good. Either we can raise a technical support ticket with them, which gets answered in 24 hours or we can use the very good community that they have. Whenever we post a query, we are able to get the answer easily from the community. It's very helpful.

The installation is very simple. In just five minutes we can install it and we don't need to do any settings for resetting - such as, for example, how we do it for Selenium or other tools. We don't require much time to deploy it. In no more than five minutes it is installed and ready to go.

The price is moderate. It's not the cheapest or the most expensive if you compare it with other competitors. It's okay. 

My company is a partner of TestComplete. I am a senior test architect in our organization.

If a company has an ecosystem and they need to automate the web, desktop, or mobile, then TestComplete is the right tool. Even if they need enterprise application automation, it's very easy. On top of that, using a scriptless approach will save a lot of time. However, users are not limited to that. They can use Python, JavaScript, VBScript, or other kinds of options. You can import external Python libraries inside it, which will give additional capabilities to the tool. It's been very useful.

Overall, I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

The features of TestComplete that were most valuable to me were:

• The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)
• The ability to create test scripts that were easy to modify;
• The ability to easily review a log of software errors, if any

It would have been a huge task to have to run the test scripts manually, probably 12 hours straight. We were able to run tests on daily promotions of software so all software was tested every night, making any bugs instantly visible the next morning. It gave us quick confirmation that software changes worked, and without breaking any existing software.

We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses. This was because sometimes the Windows PC feeding the scanner script data was faster than the scanner could process it, so we had to constantly tweek the wait times so the script wouldn’t bomb out. I have since used software with a “wait for” function that would wait for a response, but if TestComplete did, we didn’t know about it.

One of the main reasons I was hired was to use TestComplete with green screen applications, which was possible, but not easy. You had to know the exact column and row position of every text line on the screen so you could verify the string being tested and analyze exactly where and what the response would be.

I used TestComplete as a QA Automation consultant for about six months.

No

No

No

We never needed customer service.

We never needed technical support.

Nothing previous to TestComplete.

That happened before I was hired, so I don't know.

TestComplete was implemented with the help of contract software developers who created the test scripts, which was invaluable to be able to use it for testing, and to use them as templates so we could copy and modify to make new scripts.

unknown.

unknown.

TestComplete was installed before I was hired, so I know nothing about this.

• High UI technologies coverage
• Direct access to object internal properties and methods

Faster feedback on any product changes and uncovered problems before full regression starts. That can save a lot of time.

Scripting languages should be extended to support more popular programming languages like Java, C#, Ruby, Python. Many other vendors have such support or moved into such a direction. e.g. SilkTest has OpenAgent since 2008 with support of Java, C#. HP recently published LeanFT which integrates with popular development environments (Eclipse, Visual Studio). IBM solutions were initially designed for Java. Squish supports multiple languages. So, TestComplete should have support of such programming languages apart from VBScript and JScript modifications.

About three years onwards.

TestComplete had problems during long hours runs. In some cases it could crash without leaving any logs. Also, if there were some unhanded exception it could drop the error message waiting for user input. This is not really acceptable for nightly runs and required human assistance. But this problem is rather language-specific

I never had to speak to them.

I never had to speak to them.

The setup is pretty easy.

We used a vendor team. My advice for implementation is only one, follow the best practices (some of them are available on the vendor site). They were formulated based on real experiences.

ROI was never calculated explicitly, but normally the ROI point was expected to be reached after three to five months of the project.

Mainly, when we did an evaluation and comparison, TestComplete had two big advantages -

• Good technology support
• Relatively low price in comparison to other vendor tools

I used this solution mostly for a proof of concept. We have a lot of desktop applications with a lot of engines and customized framework. I used this solution to prove that it can interact with some old desktop applications or customized framework, where any other tool would not fit. 

It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. 

I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows.

I didn't use it very heavily. One issue that I found was that there wasn't a quick way or a button to move Visual Basic scripts to TestComplete. We have a lot of such scripts in our organization, and it would be very useful to have some option to easily move these scripts. It is currently possible to convert these scripts to TestComplete, but it is not easy. I have to write some code, but everything is not available immediately.

I have been using this solution for maybe one year. 

It is very stable and easy going.

I didn't come to that point. In my department, we had two users. 

I didn't contact them.

The initial setup was very straightforward. I have a lot of experience and knowledge. Therefore, it was very easy for me to switch to TestComplete, but I am not sure about a new person.

I would definitely recommend this solution. I would rate SmartBear TestComplete an eight out of ten.

The test tree makes for quick work of choosing which tests you want to run at any time. Whether it's all or nothing, I can re-run parts of a test suite without having to start over again.

The Object Spy has surpassed any other "spy" tools I have ever used. It allows me to input parameters without having to write a quick Visual Basic script around it to try it. Diving deep into object trees can be made a breeze with the search function.

I would like to see improved language support, with Python being my

first choice. Visual Basic is outdated, where C# has been its

replacement for years.

This solution has been in use for almost three years, since I started working at this company. It has been mostly stable with static test cases, and only minor maintenance. The updates typically are changing search criteria. We upgraded from v9 about one year ago.

Technical support has been good. There was an issue where certain installations of TestComplete would give an ambiguous error on startup. After teleconferencing with one of their support specialists, we were able to solve it. Forum support on their community site has also been good.

No previous solution I know of was implemented prior to my employment here. Attempting to implement the same solution in UFT would have been nearly impossible.

The initial setup was straightforward. Licensing was simple, and getting the initial object mapping was painless. Only a high-level base set of object mapping was done.

The implementation was done entirely in-house. The projects were made from scratch, where function libraries & test suites were made from existing manual test cases.

The automation has improved over time, allowing it to integrate with other external tools for defect tracking.

The automation module helped us save time in regression tests.

It works by recording and playing a script for some part of development. However, there's no way of knowing where it failed. The developers needed help to correct these errors to script them in order to work. I noticed many changes made from version to version.

This tool is also very expensive compared to the similar tools in the market. Price needs to be affordable.

I've used it since 2012.

We faced lots of code breaking, and needed to perform adjustments on our systems to get Test Complete to fit in.

Sometimes it runs fast, and sometimes it runs slow.

No issues encountered.

They used to respond in less than 24 hours, and compared to SpiraTest, it's not that great.

SpiraTest took a minute to respond to any technical support issues, but Test Complete takes longer.

It's not complex.

It was already in place when I joined the company.

6/10.

It's priced high, and they should look into it to make it more competitive.

We also looked at Selenium IDE, and chose it because it's cheaper.

Check the price and compare to other available tools in the market and decide select the one best fits the needs.

The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules.

The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced.

I would like the ability to automatically distribute web applications to all of the concurrent users.

We have been using TestComplete for the past two years. 

The stability is good.

The technical support is quite good.

The initial setup is not too straightforward and not too complex. I would say that it's okay.

The price varies depending on the plan that you choose. The option we chose was around $2,000 USD.

I am currently investigating the differences between TestComplete and TestLeft.

TestComplete is a good product compared to other options that are on the market.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution to automate the user interface.

The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers.

The most valuable features are the script recording and the object spy. The solution has the ability to structure text well using different modules.

The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS.

The solution has impressive stability.

There are some unsolved issues working with control drop downs that need to be resolved.

The initial setup is easy. You just have to click and go. It was very fast for me on my desktop, however, I cannot speak to how fast it was on the production server.

Currently, we're evaluating the product, so we have not yet bought a license.

Right now, we're in the process of evaluating this product and Squish.

I'm using the desktop version of the solution.

Right now, I'm working with TestComplete, and will compare it to another product called Squish. Once I've compared the two, I'll make recommendations to my customers and our company about whether or not to buy the complete solution.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd rate it higher if the solution offered the ability to test on Mac OS.