We performed a comparison between SmartBear TestComplete and Telerik Test Studio 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."Selenium integration."
"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"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 most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"The initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete was complex."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"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."
"In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 71 reviews while Telerik Test Studio is ranked 18th in Functional Testing Tools with 5 reviews. SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6, while Telerik Test Studio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Telerik Test Studio writes "Very good performance and load testing capabilities". SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and Bitbar, whereas Telerik Test Studio is most compared with Selenium HQ, Ranorex Studio, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca and Visual Studio Test Professional. See our SmartBear TestComplete vs. Telerik Test Studio report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression Testing Tools vendors, and best Test Automation 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.