SmartBear TestComplete Competitors and Alternatives

Get our free report covering Tricentis, Katalon Studio, Ranorex, and other competitors of SmartBear TestComplete. Updated: May 2021.
511,307 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of SmartBear TestComplete competitors and alternatives

AK
SAP QA Manager at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 10
Helped us move from manual regression testing to continuous testing, with an increased scope

What is our primary use case?

Its primary function is test automation. We record the test procedures and execute them in an automatic way. It gives us reports, in a centralized way, of all the information that we need to manage test automation for the ERP system and a few other systems as well.

Pros and Cons

  • "Certify's web UI testing abilities for testing of modern applications like SAP Fiori was good when we started and they developed it to be even better. We all know that web applications can change objects in DOM quite fast and it breaks tests. To counter it Certify has made object recognition more flexible and generic, so we don't have any troubles."
  • "When it comes to mobile testing, we have a small bottleneck there. You have to buy third-party separate licenses if you want to test on a mobile. Business wise we see room for improvement there, although it's that really critical for us."

What other advice do I have?

As always, you have to know what you're trying to achieve. You also have to think about how do you model your system-under-test; how it is written, the quality requirements and standards. The key benefit comes from reusable test scripts. When it comes to Certify itself as a tool, keep your eye on objects. If you map something, keep a good inventory so you understand it and you don't put all the objects in one big basket. For me, the biggest lesson from using Certify is that you can do quite interesting and complicated things with the codeless approach. You don't really need a complicated…
DR
Automation Test Consultant at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Consultant
Reduces test execution time, performance well for non-web-based applications, but the AI features need to be improved

What is our primary use case?

I am a consultant in my organization and one of the tasks that I perform is to assist other users with technical issues. Specifically, with UFT One, I am currently evaluating the AI features. I want to experiment with them and find out how it all works so that we can take that information to our customers.

Pros and Cons

  • "I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
  • "The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."

What other advice do I have?

In the past, UFT One did not support integration with third-party applications such as Jenkins and Bamboo. However, there are now some plugins that are available. My advice for others who are considering this product is that they are looking to automate non-web applications, then it is a good choice. For web-based applications, I would recommend another tool, such as Tricentis Tosca. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
SB
Director of Engineering at a energy/utilities company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 5
A stable solution with good scripting feature, but needs better scalability and a bigger pool of third-party contractors

What is our primary use case?

We used it for data-driven automated tests that have numeric calculations with high precision requirements. We probably are using the version from two years ago.

Pros and Cons

  • "Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
  • "We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."

What other advice do I have?

It is a fine product. It is just like any other tool. It is a powerful tool, and it needs commitment. Our way to get that on top of our workload was to find a short term contractor. If you've got the manpower to commit to being there to get it started, it will be just fine. There is no real big objection to Silk Test. We just needed some other help with the designs. I would rate Silk Test a seven out of ten.
Shweta Mukkawar
Technical Lead at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
Good reporting, easy-to-use interface, and the APIs are useful

What is our primary use case?

We have been using this solution in my organization. There are several clients who have come back to us asking for different automation tools and our views on which automation tools can be used in their respective projects. We have been evaluating for these clients. The evaluations we were doing, was for our client but done within the organization only.

Pros and Cons

  • "The reporting is really nice."
  • "The UI does not have the option of automating the scroll bars."

What other advice do I have?

The recommendation of this solution depends from client to client and what their requirements would be, the parameters, and what is important to them. If the client wants good support and at the same time they want to have a good database included with the Automation Testing Suite, and is ready to spend the money, then we would definitely suggest Tricenta Tosca as a good option. Again, it is dependant on the client's requirements and what they would want in an automation tool. If you have Linux or Mac machines, then it gets very difficult to implement Tosca. I would suggest using it. For…
RV
Programmer at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Consultant
Built-in support for testing C# and .NET is helpful in our continuous integration development process

What is our primary use case?

I use Visual Studio Test Professional for C# and Java. Within our continuous integration environment, our testing using this solution includes running a script that takes about ten minutes. At work, I use the paid version but at home, I use the Community Edition.

Pros and Cons

  • "The most valuable feature is the in-built support for C# and .NET projects."
  • "We would like to be able to easily integrate this solution with our continuous integration tools, such as Jenkins."

What other advice do I have?

We are only using test scripts, which involves a minimal number of the features that are provided. We have also recommended this solution to some of our clients. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
Get our free report covering Tricentis, Katalon Studio, Ranorex, and other competitors of SmartBear TestComplete. Updated: May 2021.
511,307 professionals have used our research since 2012.