SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

I'm currently are trying to apply it to our software application.

We use it for testing Windows applications for CUTE, based on the CUTE framework. For now, that's all we use it for because Complete does not suggest any other options that are appropriate for us. By that, I mean it doesn't seem to work with Mac OS, Android OS, and iOS.

I only have experience with Windows, so I find all the best features are for that operating system.

Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well.

The solution has a great feature called macro recording. With it, I can make it into a macro in a few of the languages Complete suggests. This is really useful for me, personally.

The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS.

Right now, Complete can test only on native Android and native iOS applications.

I've been using the solution for about a month. 

This tool is quite stable. I had only one crash, and I sent a report for this crash to technical support. Everything else seems to work perfectly. Aside from the one issue, we haven't had any other problems.

I don't have any experience, unfortunately, with scalability. We use just one instance on one machine so I've never attempted to scale the solution. There's just one user on the platform right now.

I am not sure if our organization will extend its usage in the future. We have a strong need to make this work on other platforms. We may switch to a different tool.

I do have some experience with technical support. I've found a few answers to my issues on Smart BF5. I've also had assistance with the support engineers. So far, I've been satisfied with the level of support I have been able to receive. 

I have used other solutions, including ALTA. It has good UI, but I don't know if you are really able to directly compare it to this solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. We found it simple and not too complex. Our team didn't run into any issues.

For us, deployment took two to three days.

We didn't use an integrator, reseller or consultant for the deployment. We handled the entire process ourselves.

I'm not sure if there are licensing costs involved in the solution. We simply bought the product outright and started using it.

I'm currently working with the latest version of the solution.

My advice to others is to just decide if this tool is usable for your requirements. I spent a lot of time developing some tests, but then I understood that we actually needed more platforms. That's why we will switch to another tool. That's also why it's important to check your organization's requirements. Otherwise, like us, you may need to switch.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

The opportunity to work with DevExpress and WPF objects.

• Approximately, we get new build once per week. So I need to provide smoke testing for it. In case of manual tests execution, it is needed 48 hours (six working days) to smoke it. With TestComplete, we need just eight hours (or even less - if we're using multiple machines)
• Stability and Stress testing. It is impossible to test our applications manually for 48 hours (two full days) continuously. With TestComplete, it is possible

• Better stability, as sometimes, TestComplete crashes when attempting to delete over 10 logs
• Support for the latest versions of DevExpress
• More comfortable XML editor (like in Notepad++)
• A better script editor. I will be happy, if the TestComplete editor would contain a design like the one in Visual Studio or Eclipse - errors and unusable variables being highlighte, and refactoring opporunities
• Own log viewer in TestExecute. For now, it is possible to open it only within a browser, which is not very good, because if the log is 2GB or more, it will take 10-20 minuts to open with Internet Explorer

I've used it for three years, including, v7, & v9 with TestExecute v9, and it's been in use on the project since 2010.

When we migrated from v7 to v9, we encountered a problem with using recursive code; in DelphiScript recursion was completely broken.

Sometimes, TestComplete crashes when attempting to delete over 10 logs.

Customer Service:

It's acceptable.

Technical Support:

It's acceptable.

I tried Visual Studio 2010 (Coded UI Tests feature). The tool was changed, because TC is cheaper and more acceptable for those apps testing. But for now, this project doesn't use QA automation and I am working in another project

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 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

Customer Service:

We never needed customer service.

Technical Support:

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.

• Dynamic Find methods - FindChild, FindAllChildren, and FindAll
• Keys method
• Project variables
• Time delay methods
• aqString methods
• Intelisense

Regressions and Smoke was done manually in the past, which has been replaced by Automated Testing.

The web testing framework of TestComplete is not very helpful for an Automation Engineer. It requires the same effort as Selenium, and. in most cases, Selenium proves to be a better testing tool for web-based testing.

Web Application Testing has the following issues:

• Events do not work on Modal Dialog
• Dynamic Object Capturing is too hard and takes too much time in finding the correct object
• Intellisense demos do not work on methods in the classes

Similarly, the mobile testing framework of TestComplete is not of much use either. I do not recommend anyone use this tool for web or mobile testing.

I have been a user of this tool for five years, including previous versions, on desktop, mobile and the web. I have completed a few major projects with thsi tool and have enhanced numerous test suites created with this tool.

There have been quite a few issues. Delay methods are not so dynamic in TestComplete, so if a screen hasn't loaded, and the delay is a static delay, then the test moves forward in script, but the previous operation has not been done, resulting in failure of the whole test one after another.

This also means that TestComplete and TestExecute work in a not so similar manner, causing TestExecute to be practically useless. This happens in the case of HTML5 based web application.

Customer Service: Level of customer services is satisfactory. Replies are swift and prompt.
Technical Support: Solutions are scarce. If there is no solution to a problem, the support people will tell you there is no way around it, and then you are stuck. The issues are not resolved in the next releases, mainly because these are not escalated on the backend.

SilkTest was being used previously with my previous employer. It was abandoned because it was hard to script and advanced features were not being added.

The previous solution I used was SilkTest, which was being used by my previous employer. It was abandoned because it was hard to script, and advanced features were not being added.

It was done through a vendor. It's better to get it done through vendors, as they are then responsible in the future.

It is not a good idea to choose this tool only if it is being used by others. In our case it is an expensive tool, and we should have exerted the same effort by using Selenium, and would have had better results. It appears that if you have a bif web application built in HTML5 and Jquery, and uses Divs and Modal dialogs, then avoid using TestComplete.

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.

I've been using the solution for one year.

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.

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 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.

On-premises