SmartBear TestComplete vs UFT (QTP)

SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 15 reviews vs UFT (QTP) which is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 23 reviews. The top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "Allows us to test both desktop and web applications". The top reviewer of UFT (QTP) writes "With regularly occurring application releases, any QA team member can execute tests (regression suites) stored in ALM/Quality Center, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with UFT (QTP), Ranorex and Selenium HQ. UFT (QTP) is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete and Worksoft Certify. See our SmartBear TestComplete vs UFT (QTP) report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
+Add products to compare
Most Helpful Review
Smartbear testcomplete vs. uft %28qtp%29 report from it central station 2018 05 04 thumbnail
Find out what your peers are saying about SmartBear TestComplete vs UFT (QTP) and others in Functional Testing Tools.
269,560 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Quotes From Members Comparing SmartBear TestComplete vs UFT (QTP)

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
Test items, project variables helps in managing automation suite and scheduling execution.Selenium integration.It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems.The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight).TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications.Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested.I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers.It allows us to test both desktop and web applications.

Read more »

We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution.​Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users.Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test.With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources.Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator.I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well.Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier.The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation.

Read more »

Cons
Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage.Error handling features in the tool are a little limited.The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools.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.TestComplete gives support to do requests to a SOAP web service but has no support to do HTTP requests on Restful services.Product is not stable enough and it crashes often.The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT.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).

Read more »

Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation).I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications.Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers.Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function.I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved.Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification.It doesn’t support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this.You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
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.Buy modules on demand. If you have a four-person team and they will each automate tests only 25% of the time, it's better to buy a floating licence and share the tool during the work day.The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP.My advice so far, is that while it’s not quite as powerful and easy to use as UFT, its price tag more than makes up for it.The product is becoming more and more expensive.

Read more »

For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand.It's an expensive solution.The licensing and pricing model is confusing.It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly.

Read more »

Smartbear testcomplete vs. uft %28qtp%29 report from it central station 2018 05 04 thumbnail
Find out what your peers are saying about SmartBear TestComplete vs UFT (QTP) and others in Functional Testing Tools.
269,560 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
RANKING
Views
27,169
Comparisons
13,520
Reviews
15
Followers
2,122
Avg. Rating
7.8
Views
40,767
Comparisons
21,900
Reviews
23
Followers
2,363
Avg. Rating
8.1
Top Comparisons
Top Comparisons
Micro focus logo
Compared 23% of the time.
Oaqp0rmd 400x400
Compared 18% of the time.
See more SmartBear TestComplete competitors »
Tricentislogo
Compared 19% of the time.
Smartbear%20software logo
Compared 14% of the time.
Worksoft twitter logo reasonably small
Compared 9% of the time.
See more UFT (QTP) competitors »
Also Known As
Also Known AsMicro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
Website/Video
Website/VideoSmartBear Software
  • Vendor 7999 screenshot 1524947464
Micro Focus
  • Vendor 7619 screenshot 1521912797
OverviewQuestionmark icon
Overview

TestComplete is a powerful and robust automated testing tool for mobileweb 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.

QuickTest Professional is now known as Micro Focus Unified Functional Testing, and is an automated testing tool that provides unified AI, GUI, and Business Process testing.

With QuickTest Professional, you can free up IT resources to focus on other areas, while the automated software takes care of all your application software testing requirements. Testing happens continuously and quickly, and so nips any potential issues in the bud. QuickTest Professional saves money and time, and optimizes business productivity and overall user experience.

OFFER
Learn more about SmartBear TestComplete
Learn more about UFT (QTP)
Sample Customers
Sample CustomersCisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters. CSS Insurance, Revolution IT, Credit Suisse, and General Electric Company.
Top IndustriesQuestionmark icon
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Software R&D Company
35%
Retailer
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm
13%
Retailer
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Transportation Company
9%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm
31%
Insurance Company
19%
Software R&D Company
8%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Manufacturing Company
44%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Pharma/Biotech Company
5%
Healthcare Company
5%
Company SizeQuestionmark icon
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business
15%
Midsize Enterprise
40%
Large Enterprise
45%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business
16%
Midsize Enterprise
26%
Large Enterprise
58%
REVIEWERS
Small Business
14%
Midsize Enterprise
18%
Large Enterprise
69%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business
7%
Midsize Enterprise
11%
Large Enterprise
82%
Smartbear testcomplete vs. uft %28qtp%29 report from it central station 2018 05 04 thumbnail
Find out what your peers are saying about SmartBear TestComplete vs UFT (QTP) and others in Functional Testing Tools.
Download now
269,560 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.

Sign Up with Email