Most Helpful Review
It supports various and different versions of browsers in web testing, but it's slightly unstable with longer...
Helps us to quickly come up with a test plan, but overall, it's not as intuitive to use as it could be
Find out what your peers are saying about SmartBear TestComplete vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
397,408 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well.
The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find.
Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional.
The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing.
The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers.
The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools.
The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps.
Test items, project variables helps in managing automation suite and scheduling execution.
The most valuable feature is reusing test cases. We can put in a set of test cases for an application and, every time we deploy it, we are able to rerun those tests very easily. It saves us time and improves quality as well.
The most important feature which I like in qTest manager is the user-friendliness, especially the tabs. Since I'm the admin, I use the configuration field settings and allocate the use cases to the different QA people. It is not difficult, as a QA person, for me to understand what is happening behind the scenes.
The JIRA integration is really important to us because it allows our business analysts to see test results inside the JIRA ticket and that we have met the definition of "done," and have made sure we tested to the requirements of the story.
The main thing that really stuck out when we started using this tool, is the linkability of qTest to JIRA, and the traceability of tying JIRA requirement and defects directly with qTest. So when you're executing test cases, if you go to fail it, it automatically links and opens up a JIRA window. You're able to actually write up a ticket and it automatically ties it to the test case itself.
The integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good.
Being able to log into Defects, go right into JIRA, add that defect to the user story, right there at that point, means we connect all of that. That is functionality we haven't had in the past. As a communication hub, it works really well. It's pretty much a closed loop; it's all contained right there. There's no delay. You're getting from the defect to the system to JIRA to the developer.
qTest helps us compile issues and have one place to look for them. We're not chasing down emails and other sources. So in the grand scheme of things, it does help to resolve issues faster because everyone is working off of the same information in one location.
I like the way it structures a project... We're able to put the test cases into qTest or modify something that's already there, so it's a reusable-type of environment. It is very important that we can do that and change our test data as needed...
The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS.
Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work.
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 solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation.
The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS.
The artificial intelligence needs to be improved.
What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing.
Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage.
You can add what I believe are called suites and modules. I opened a ticket on this as to what's the difference. And it seems there's very little difference. In some places, the documentation says there's no difference. You just use them to organize how you want. But they're not quite the same because there are some options you can do under one and not the other. That gets confusing. But since they are very close to the same, people use them differently and that creates a lack of consistency.
As an admin, I'm unable to delete users. I'm only able to make a user inactive. This is a scenario about which I've already made a suggestion to qTest. When people leave the company, I should be able to delete them from qTest. I shouldn't have to have so many users.
The installation of the software could be streamlined. We pay for the on-premise support and they help us a lot, but the installation is something which is very command-line oriented.
The Insights reporting engine has a good test-metrics tracking dashboard. The overall intent is good... But the execution is a little bit limited... the results are not consistent. The basic premise and functionality work fine... It is a little clunky with some of the advanced metrics. Some of the colorings are a little unique.
We feel the integration between JIRA and qTest could be done even better. It's not as user-friendly as qTest's other features. The JIRA integration with qTest needs to mature a lot... We need smarter execution with JIRA in the case of failures, so that the way we pull out the issues again for the next round is easy... Locating JIRA defects corresponding to a trait from the test results is something of a challenge.
I would really love to find a way to get the results, into qTest Manager, of Jenkins' executing my Selenium scripts, so that when I look at everything I can look at the whole rather than the parts. Right now, I can only see what happens manually. Automation-wise, we track it in bulk, as opposed to the discrete test cases that are performed. So that connection point would be really interesting for me.
I really can't stand the Defects module. It's not easy to use. ALM's... Defects Module is really robust. You can actually walk through each defect by just clicking an arrow... But with the qTest Defects module you can't do that. You have to run a query. You're pretty much just querying a database. It's not really a module, or at least a robust module. Everything is very manual.
Reporting shouldn't be so difficult. I shouldn't have to write so many queries to get the data I'm looking for, for a set of metrics about how many releases we had. I still have to break those spreadsheets out of there to get the data I need.
Pricing and Cost Advice
The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive.
Our ROI is about $10,000 a year.
This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team.
TestComplete now have come up with three modules (Web, Desktop & Mobile), so based on the type of product for automation, it is adequate to purchase the required module.
We signed for a year and I believe we paid $24,000 for Flood, Manager, and the qTest Insights. We paid an extra for $4,000 for the migration support.
We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that.
We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license.
It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market.
Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year.
The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount.
For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year.
out of 34 in Test Management Tools
Average Words per Review
out of 34 in Test Management Tools
Average Words per Review
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 22% of the time.
Compared 15% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Also Known As
TestComplete is a powerful and robust automated testing tool for mobile, web and desktop applications. Quickly and easily create accurate and repeatable tests across multiple devices, platforms and environments – regardless of experience level. It supports multiple languages, modern control sets and integrates with open source frameworks and tools like Selenium, SoapUI and Jenkins.
|QASymphony is a leading provider of enterprise test case management, test analytics and exploratory testing solutions for agile development and QA teams. Our solutions help companies create better software by improving speed, efficiency and collaboration during the testing process.|
Learn more about SmartBear TestComplete
Learn more about Tricentis qTest
|Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.||Amazon, Salesforce, Barclays, Adobe, SecureWorks, Samsung, OfficeDepot, Zappos, Cisco, Visa, Verizon, FICO, Silverpop, Nordstrom|
Software R&D Company22%
Comms Service Provider11%
Financial Services Firm11%
Software R&D Company32%
Financial Services Firm9%
Comms Service Provider8%
Software R&D Company29%
Software R&D Company31%
Comms Service Provider18%