We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."JMeter is a free tool with a large user population, which comes in handy because we have a vast knowledge base to tap into when needed. It's also easier to hire consultants who know JMeter."
"It's very easy to install, and it's very easy to code and develop the script."
"The product helps me get the expected performance from applications or servers and reduces costs. It also enhances the performance of the services and helped them reach their ultimate capacity."
"The new version of the solution is stable."
"The most valuable features are the ability to capture the entire traffic of particular pages and the proper readability of entire pages and entire APIs."
"Apache JMeter is stable."
"The solution's initial setup is easy."
"We find the ease of use and the reports and graphs available valuable."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"The product has many features."
"It has some proxy-based dependencies which require specific proxies to be set up or disabled, which causes problems."
"We would like more documentation to be provided for the advanced level features that are available in this solution, in order to improve development."
"The initial setup is complex and needs to be upgraded."
"Considering the kinds of tests we are performing here, where we launch several tests at the same time as a batch request, JMeter is not the best tool for the job. Those kinds of things could be done easily with other tools, like T6."
"It should start supporting the presentation layer. It currently provides performance testing specifically at the application and API level. It can be extended to the presentation layer, which includes mainly Angular and React frameworks. It should also be easy to use and easy to train people."
"They can improve it a little bit in terms of distribution load testing. We struggled with it during the distribution. In terms of reporting, runtime monitoring is not currently included, and it should be included. They can also improve it on the reporting side in terms of the comparison of the reports. They can also focus more on integration with CI/CD. Currently, people are using their own customized tools. It would be nice if Apache can provide some standard tools and procedures for integration with CI/CD tools like DPR. There are some tools, but it would be nice if official standard tools and procedures are available."
"The solution is not user-friendly, there is no framework for autocorrelation or parameterization."
"The UI could be better."
"At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has reduced the challenges to some extent, as we can now utilize OCR if the normal method doesn't work. Nevertheless, there is still significant potential for improvement in TestComplete's ability to identify various object elements. I don't have any specific concerns to mention. I have observed significant improvements in TestComplete over the past few years, especially in its support for highly dynamic object elements used in products like Salesforce Dynamics 365. In earlier versions, there were numerous challenges, but the current version is far superior to its predecessors."
"The integration tools could be better."
"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."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"TestComplete gives support to do requests to a SOAP web service but has no support to do HTTP requests on Restful services."
"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."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 70 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". 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". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Katalon Studio, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish.
We monitor all Performance 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.