We performed a comparison between LEAPWORK and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable of this solution is the no code option. It offers drag and drop when it comes to development and removes the need for a developer."
"The UI is user-friendly."
"It provides automated testing. Instead of us doing manual testing, we can utilize Leapwork, and it tests most of our critical processes. In the next phase, we also plan to do some process work with it, such as using Leapwork to create reports or provide certain extracts of data."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"The product has many features."
"TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."
"This company offers end-to-end capabilities for test suite creation and execution. One feature that I particularly appreciate is the tagging system. Tags are highly valuable, as they allow you to assign tags to your test cases. When there's an impact in a specific area, you can search for and run all test cases associated with that tag. I find this functionality very useful."
"It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"The initial setup is difficult."
"The only thing that I don't like about the product is the need to deploy agents on the laptops of people doing the testing. So, you have an agent on a server, then you have an agent on the laptop of the person who is doing the testing, and that seems like a lot of stuff and a kind of anti-cloud. Why do I have to deploy agents on people's machines in order to do something in the cloud? I'm sure they're doing that so they can monitor their licensing and all that stuff, but it is not necessarily a friendly process."
"This solution could be improved by offering better reporting related to the integration into Azure DevOps."
"It is a very comprehensive tool, and there is a significant learning curve to being able to adopt the tool. Because it does so much, there is only so much that you can learn. You can, however, do some simpler things right away. They do have a kind of boot camp where some of their experts engage with you, and during that time, you can work on the top initiatives that you want to do, and that's a good process. After you start using the tool, there is a lot more that you would want to do."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
"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."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
LEAPWORK is ranked 17th in Test Automation Tools with 3 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 70 reviews. LEAPWORK is rated 7.6, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of LEAPWORK writes "The product has a user-friendly UI, and it provides good support, but it is expensive and difficult to setup". 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". LEAPWORK is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Katalon Studio and Avo Assure, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and UiPath Test Suite. See our LEAPWORK vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.