SmartBear TestComplete Review

Whereas we did regressions and Smoke manually in the past, we now do automated testing. However, Intellisense demos do not work on methods in the classes.


What is most valuable?

  • Dynamic Find methods - FindChild, FindAllChildren, and FindAll
  • Keys method
  • Project variables
  • Time delay methods
  • aqString methods
  • Intelisense

How has it helped my organization?

Regressions and Smoke was done manually in the past, which has been replaced by Automated Testing.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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.

How are customer service and technical support?

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.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

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.

How was the initial setup?

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.

What about the implementation team?

It was done through a vendor. It's better to get it done through vendors, as they are then responsible in the future.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

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.


Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.

1 visitor found this review helpful
Add a Comment
Guest
1 Comment

author avatar
Vendor

My experience with the web support in TestComplete matches yours. As such I have implemented all of our web-based automation using Selenium. I am currently using TestComplete for our desktop applications only.