We performed a comparison between IBM DevOps Test UI and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"The product has many features."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"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 code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
"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."
"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."
"The integration tools could be better."
IBM DevOps Test UI is ranked 22nd in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 72 reviews. IBM DevOps Test UI is rated 7.2, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM DevOps Test UI writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". 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". IBM DevOps Test UI is most compared with Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, HCL OneTest and Worksoft Certify, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish. See our IBM DevOps Test UI vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional 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.