SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

Evaluated for automating regression suite for windows desktop application and found testcomplete suits well in the aspect of identifying most of the objects and in few other parameters.

Good test coverage through automation and provides unique solutions to the most of automation challenges (e.g. comparison of images).

- Object spy eases the object identification method.

- TextObject recognition feature of this product exposes most of the objects to perform the actions.

- Test items, project variables helps in managing automation suite and scheduling execution.

- Jenkins integration to schedule executions.

- Integrated with selenium webdriver.

- Conversion of JScript project to Javascript project

- Integrated to Environment manager

- Support to read text from PDF

- Increased performance with less memory and cpu usage.

- Supports various and different versions of browsers in web testing.

- Support to Windows mobile application. (Native iOS and Android apps are supported currently.)

More than five years.

Customer Service:

Customer service and technical support from SmartBear is more responsive. Active SmartBear forums are available to get clarification.

Technical Support:

Customer service and technical support from SmartBear is more responsive. Active SmartBear forums are available to get clarification.

In-house team is used for implementing framework for automation through TestComplete. Tool must be explored completely and knowing its unique features is more important before implementation as it has lot of inbuilt features.

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. Node-locked and floating license are available which could be decided based on the team composition and work strategy. Current license pricing is available at http://smartbear.com/product/testcomplete/pricing/

• 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Regressions and Smoke was done manually in the past, which has been replaced by Automated Testing.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 have what we call a UK tax related application. We are using the solution to automate some functional cases of the application. Use case wise, it's usually used more on the accounting side, which is the main purpose of the application. With the available functional testing of workflows, we are able to have accountability there.

The solution's most valuable aspect is how easy it is to create tests. For example, recording options.

The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup.

We can easily create test suites without much trouble. For example, by using the UFP test, we can directly create a test suite. 

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.

I have three or four months of experience on the solution. I am an architect on technical optics. Different teams work on the project as well. I mentor them sometimes as part of my job. As far as hands-on experience goes, I can say I've only actually been using it for a few months. It hasn't been more than that.

Our company as a whole, on the other hand, has been using the solution for the better part of four or five years now.

We haven't had any problems with stability. It's reliable. We haven't witnessed any bugs or glitches. It doesn't seem to crash on us or to freeze.

The solution is scalable. There are no issues in that sense. If a company needs to expand out the solution they can do so easily. We can add as many artifacts as we want.

I'm not sure if we have plans to increase usage in the future.

I've never used technical support, so I can't speak to how good technical support is.

The initial set up was not complex. I can say it's straightforward due to the fact that we have started out relatively small. We have gradually developed it. We continue to build it out all the time. That made it simple. This was important for us, as our team didn't have too much experience with the solution. 

The deployment was handled by my IT team. I did not handle the deployment personally.

The implementation was handled in house by our own teams.

The pricing is reasonable. It's not too expensive as a solution. We're satisfied with the billing so far.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

If you compare it with competitors, the object identification needs to be improved. It also needs to ensure that going forward it supports new technologies. We are seeing a lot of new technologies coming up. It's important that test companies support these new advancements. If they do, then it will give testers a reason to try them out and hopefully adopt the solution. It's a win-win.

The solution is also great for language flexibility. It's important to support a number of languages to help increase user adoption.

I'd recommend this solution to other organizations. It's one of three I'd recommend for sure based on the pricing and feature offering it has. Of course, this is just a recommendation n terms of a commercial tool. Open-source tool recommendations are a whole other question.

On-premises

• Data driven testing using Microsoft Excel
• Viewing properties of objects using Object Spy
• Organizing test runs using the Test Items page of the project editor

For versions 8.X to 9.20.2460.7, I've been using TestComplete for about four and a half years.

It seems to crash once every two to three months.

Customer Service:

7/10

Technical Support:

7/10

For a node-locked license, it's pretty straightforward. For floating licenses, it's a little more complex because you have to set-up the license manager and do a little bit of configuration on the computers that use the floating licenses.

• Its Multi browser testing capabilities
• Record-and playback
• Network suite testing (remote testing) capabilities
• Key word driven testing with ability to finetune tests using scripting languages
• Its flexible logging capabilities
• High level of support from Smartbear
• Support of other users in large userbase

Using TestComplete, the application tests are executed at night unmanned, so that test engineers can focus on developing new tests instead of executing existing tests.

Implementation of screen recording during testing (video recording).

I've used it for approximately four years.

No issues encountered,

No issues encountered,

Customer Service:

Very professional and adequate. I would rate this on a 9.5/10.

Technical Support:

Very professional and adequate. I would rate this on a 9.5/10.

It's straightforward.

I implemented it myself, using instructions from the vendor’s website.

Start with evaluation version of the product, which can be downloaded from Smartbear's website, and after the initial evaluation, decide which licensing method you need.

I have evaluated other solutions, the cost model, the level of support of legacy software, the easy of use and easy implementation approach were main reasons to choose this product.

Focus on implementing a test automation framework. Start by downloading a free evaluation trial version of the product, and see if the product works well with the application(s) you want to design an automated test frame for.

We primarily use the solution in our data center as an application.

The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing.

The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation. 

Some sort of troubleshooting portal should be available for users.

The solution could be faster. It would be good to increase the reusability of the code so that rerun time can be saved. It would be ideal to be able to run multiple scenarios at the same time.

Right now, in terms of recording and scripting the solution is not user-friendly. They need to improve on this.

I've been using the solution for one and a half years.

The stability needs a bit of improvement. On the open-source version, you're not really able to check stability like you can on the paid version.

The solution is definitely scalable. We have about ten licenses. We may increase usage in the future.

Technical support could be better. The exact solutions we need should be provided in a more timely manner.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

The initial setup was straightforward. It's a straightforward installation. Deployment took about half a day.

We handled the implementation ourselves.

The solution is pretty good. Other options to use are TestComplete, and, for negative scenarios, Katalon Studios.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Keywords-Driven frameworks and Data-Driven Testing (DDT) methodologies used for building effective frameworks.

The fact that the latest version can be used for mobile testing.

A more effective way in Objects Mapping for applications built on domains/platforms such as Sliverlight, and Citrix is needed.

I've used it for three years.

Technical support can be improved by being more efficient in responding to questions.

Used some other products, but this was found to be the most suited for business requirements.

The initial step was straightforward which was made by carrying out a POC and the decision was to go for this solution.

Following initial training by the vendor, the implementations are done in-house.

It is value for money, and different licensing options are available.

Fig 1: Building of Automation Testing framework.

Fig 2: Automation Testing Results

• Good IDE
• Support of third party controls
• Flexible in coding
• Supports .Net assemblies
• Good community

It's decreased the time needed for the regression testing cycle.

• Memory consumption
• Speed of interaction with controls
• Sets of prepared libraries like asserts
• Templates of tests from scratch

I've used TestComplete for three years.

It's stable.

It's good, I like the support.

Previously was QTP. TestComplete is much more flexible light,and easy to use.

It's quite easy to start using it. There were no problems from the beginning.

Use JScript for quick wins. Start creating tests as small as possible.

I would say that we have now automated about 100 tests, so it saves us three days every month..