We performed a comparison between SmartBear TestComplete and TestProject 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 product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"The ease-of-use and quality of the overall product are above average."
"TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"The ease of web and mobile functional testing is pretty easy on TestProject."
"Since implementing this solution, our code management has been reduced by 40% to 60%."
"Ability to carry out automatic testing without having coding knowledge."
"The script-less part of it was good for novice users."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The automation and AI are very good."
"We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses."
"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."
"Product is not stable enough and it crashes often."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"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."
"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."
"In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical."
"TestProject needs better support for integration with other products to provide a better overall solution for test planning and test data management."
"The support is a weak point since they discontinued the tool."
"We'd like to see a direct cloud from TestProject instead of some other third party."
"In an upcoming release, there should be a SaaS offering available."
"Difficult trying to configure on more than one browser."
"I and some other experts may be able to understand the solution's reporting system, but a layperson won't understand it."
SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 70 reviews while TestProject is ranked 16th in Test Automation Tools with 6 reviews. SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6, while TestProject is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". On the other hand, the top reviewer of TestProject writes "An easy-to-use tool that saves time and functions within a limited budget". SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish, whereas TestProject is most compared with Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca and Testim. See our SmartBear TestComplete vs. TestProject 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.