We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Digital Lab and SmartBear TestComplete 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."The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"The product is easy to use."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"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."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"It is very easy to maintain tests with this tool. It covers all necessary items in the test plan. The most painful item in testing is maintenance. When changes occur, the tests should be maintained."
"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."
"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."
"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"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."
"To bring it up to a 10, I would be looking for the addition of some key functional API testing."
"It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing)."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"The integration tools could be better."
"Right now, when you buy the solution, you need to pay for one solution. You receive one set up and you install it and it's just in that one machine. It would be ideal if they could offer one subscription where you can connect to different machines with a group subscription."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
OpenText UFT Digital Lab is ranked 20th in Functional Testing Tools with 16 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 70 reviews. OpenText UFT Digital Lab is rated 7.4, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Digital Lab writes "Robust solution for application lifecycle management with numerous valuable features". 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". OpenText UFT Digital Lab is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Appium, Perfecto, AWS Device Farm and Sauce Labs, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish. See our OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Functional Testing 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.
