We performed a comparison between Appium and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Regression Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Appium helps me to do as much as much as I want to."
"The best feature of Appium is that it allows you to inspect the element. With the Appium Inspector, you don't have to install another application to do the inspection. I also like that Appium has Android device connectivity. Currently, most people use Appium as automation software, and I haven't found any other tool that's more powerful than Appium."
"The solution is easy to use."
"We get a list that shows all devices that are connected to the system."
"The way Appium server interacts with mobile apps is fantastic. It provides all the information about the elements inside the app, Android as well as iOS. I can interact with the element quickly, just type some text or get some text values from the element - whether it's a drop-down, or web text, or a native element."
"It runs completely flawlessly and seamlessly every day."
"The latest versions of the solution are stable."
"It's an open-source solution with a very large community and available documentation."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"Configuration-wise, there is a lot of room for improvement."
"Appium could improve by enabling record and run techniques similar to what they have in other licensing tools, such as Micro Focus. We have to all write the code, and then we can proceed."
"Image recognition could be improved. We have some images in our mobile applications. It should be able to run from the cloud, so we can automate the catcher."
"Appium has problems with automated validations following iOS updates, causing us to have to validate manually."
"I rarely use Appium nowadays because I'm now at the managerial level, but the last time I used it, whenever I selected and clicked on an element, Appium was very slow. I tried to debug it, but I still couldn't find the problem, so this is an area for improvement in the solution. Another area for improvement lies with the connector and server. For example, the effort to get into the local machine sometimes causes the emulator to become slow, which then leads to failure in testing, and this is the usual issue I've encountered from Appium. An additional feature I'd like added to Appium in its next release is being able to do automation in iOS without using XPath and the name of the element. In Xcode, you can use previous UI tests for detecting elements, but in Appium, you have to use Xpath and the element name instead of being able to directly put the X-UiPath, which is what you can do in Xcode. In iOS as well, sometimes the element doesn't have a name or a path. Sometimes, there's also no element."
"An application developed on the Unity platform, such as a gaming application, objects are moving in that case. Interacting with those elements is still lacking in Appium. Appium doesn't have the internal library to play with the Unity platform. That is a huge lack right now."
"There is always a concern about the amount of code that is required to enhance the automation process. The idea of having less code or no code is what we would like to see in future updates."
"The user interface needs improvement because there are issues when setting up environment variables."
"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."
"In SmartBear TestComplete the integration with Jenkins could be easier. Additionally, some of the controls could have better customization options. For example, if a grid is used and it contains multiple controls within it, it can be a checkbox, radio button, or any kind of control, the way the Object Spy is operating currently there is a lot of room for improvement."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"The integration tools could be better."
Appium is ranked 5th in Regression Testing Tools with 25 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 6th in Regression Testing Tools with 71 reviews. Appium is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Appium writes "It's easy to launch applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". Appium is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Perfecto, Xamarin Platform and Eggplant Performance, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and LEAPWORK. See our Appium vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Regression Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.