We performed a comparison between Adaptavist Test Management for Jira and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."You can group test cases together and track the execution of them."
"We don't use technical support. We have an office in Austria that provides us with solutions. Also, this solution is pretty simple and user-friendly. We don't really need help with it."
"The program is very stable and scalable."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"Lacking visual gadgets that go on a dashboard, pie charts, bar charts and histograms."
"I don't like that you need to use a lot of tabs. One test case takes 15-20 minutes and on Zephyr is take about 5-10 minutes."
"They should work on integrating the solution with AI."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
"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 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."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"The pricing is the constraint."
More Adaptavist Test Management for Jira Pricing and Cost Advice →
Adaptavist Test Management for Jira is ranked 10th in Test Management Tools with 4 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 70 reviews. Adaptavist Test Management for Jira is rated 7.2, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Adaptavist Test Management for Jira writes "Integrates with any automation tool, but the granular reporting feature should be more intuitive ". 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". Adaptavist Test Management for Jira is most compared with Zephyr Enterprise, Tricentis Tosca, Tricentis qTest, TFS and Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish. See our Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
We monitor all Test Management 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.