SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

Valuable for us is the ability to identify objects by using Find methods. I am able to process whole pages at once rather than doing everything one by one.

Using object spy can be slow sometimes and seems to require a lot of resources.

We have been using the solution for six months.

The solution freezes sometimes, but not very often. Sometimes it doesn’t find any objects from the browser and needs to restart the browser or the whole machine. This happens with Internet Explorer.

It is very difficult to have multiple developers when using Name Mapping. You can’t merge all the files and this creates conflicts.

It scales better for multiple users when using pure script, which reduces the amount of files that cannot be merged.

Support calls were helpful at the beginning, and I haven’t used the support since then.

We used TestPlant eggPlant and are still using it for thick clients where objects are not available. The development speed for TestComplete is faster and more reliable when objects can be seen.

It is easy to install and use.

We went through quite a few of them. This product seemed best for usability and recording features.

Test the trial, then go for it. Keyword tests seem viable for straightforward test cases, but to create dynamic architecture you might want to stick only with scripts and drop Name Mapping.

Keyword tests are easy and fast to record, but adding complex logic for them can be tricky and time consuming.

1. Object Browser is the most powerful feature. This has helped me tear apart every single component of the application under test. It's an awesome feature.
2. Test Editor and Debugger: This has really made my life easy as I can trace memory and stack values very easily.
3. Data driven testing has been made very easy. I am comfortable using any sort of backend to support data driven testing such as Excel/databases/etc.
4. It supports using third party DLLs has given me an edge on several occasions.

Previously, we had to wait for the end-of-sprint to make a stable release. Now, rolling out a release is not a problem. As soon as a build is deployed, the scheduler quickly executes User Acceptance Tests, and verifies that the build is fit to be delivered to the clients.

1. Support for working with COM and ActiveX objects should be more powerful. Currently we have to drill down a lot to find solutions for certain tasks.
2. Cross browser testing is a bit complex when it comes to scripting. Developers have to take care with it care, or else issues may arise at deployment time.

Overall, I have used this for more than two years, including v1040. Currently I have been using it hands on for the last year.

There often are issues with web test execution. Web pages often do not load on the first attempt.

Customer server is absolutely robust. The team respond within 12 hours.

I never needed to use paid technical support as their forum is extremely helpful. The community members respond to issues within 24 hours. It’s really amazing that within the past twelve months, I have never had a technical question I asked remain unanswered.

I am an expert on the following:

• Selenium RC and Servers/Java - but this has multiple limitations
• IBM Rational Functional Tester - it's expensive, and not as powerful as TestComplete
• AppPerfect - is not in competition with any of the above, it’s pathetic

It was straightforward. Both the node locked and floating licenses were easily deployed, and now the whole team is using it.

At one point, we had to update the hardware of the servers where the licenses were deployed, and this was very easy. We just disabled the licenses from the account and deployed them onto the upgraded servers.

I did it myself in-house. It’s very simple. No rocket science needed. Just read the manuals and you can do it.

We are saving a lot in terms of client satisfaction. We are not yet in a phase where we have savings in terms of a reduced QA team, but our clients are happy that they get bug free software. Moreover, our testing team spends more time testing new features, and we are confident enough at build roll out time that all previously developed modules are stable.

It is useful for functional testing, testing backend database, and frontend user interface.

I am using the latest version.

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.

It is a very easy-to-use tool. You don't have to be an expert in a specific syntax. You can just use graphical logic. If needed, it also allows you to apply some code. It is very useful from all perspectives.

There could be API interfaces with this tool.

I have been using this solution for about 10 years.

It is very stable. Their tests are running fluently.

We have three testers.

I have contacted them, and I got a very fast response and solution. Their support team was very helpful. Every question was answered professionally and quickly.

The help guides are also very useful.

I had used a browser tool.

It is very easy to install. It took about one hour to deploy the tool.

I implemented it with the guidance and help of the support team. It can be done by the testing team without any help from a consultant.

It costs a few hundred per year, but I am not sure. It is not at all expensive as compared to other tools.

I would recommend this tool. You don't have to be an expert in this tool to start using it. You can start by using the help guides. It is very easy to understand how to make it work.

I would rate SmartBear TestComplete a 10 out of 10.

I use this solution for functionality testing, API testing, and performance testing.

We are moving away from this solution to use Eggplant Functional.

The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools.

The SoapUI tools are very good, as well as cross-browser capabilities.

The GUI is very good.

There is a problem with usability because the speed decreases, which could be an issue with scalability because of too many hits on the site. It depends on how distributed their systems are, and how well they can handle multiple connections.

The artificial intelligence needs to be improved.

I have been using this solution for between six and twelve months.

This is a good product in terms of stability.

The technical support for this solution is always available. They have an online chat that is quick.

The initial setup of this solution was quite smooth. It was not complicated and within a week it was working. It did not take long.

We performed the implementation in-house.

This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team.

We have also been using Eggplant Functional, and the decision has been made to move forward with that solution, instead of SmartBear. It is not for technical reasons. I also find Eggplant to be a little bit pricey.

This product is quite mature, able to compete with other products in the market, and I would highly recommend it. Overall, we're very pleased with the implementation.

My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is to do a PoC and try this solution out. They can always reach out to me for help, and I can assist.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this solution is that there is a lot of hard work going on behind the scenes with this tool, to make each customer's journey easier. This tool is simple to implement and easy to use. If you don't have much time to do a lot of reading then it is still easy to take each case and adopt it quickly.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The primary use is to run regression tests on a call accounting system as a web application, which is running on a Windows operating system. The tests simulate user actions using UI and database verification.

The solution has saved a lot of human resources by running full regression tests prior to each release. In addition, during the years, many major bugs have been detected by the tool, and it has saved us the big expense of fixing problems after a release. Our confidence with the tool increased as releases were performed successfully, without any rejections from the field.

The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find. In addition, verification of UI items in all screens is also important task that consumes too
much manual resources.

Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work.

Eleven years.

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.

No issues.

Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional.

We did not have a previous solution.

The initial setup was straight forward. No issues at all during the setup stage.

The implementation was in-house.

Our ROI is about $10,000 a year.

The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive.

We did not evaluate other solutions.

• Tests can be execute and run separately.

• Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested.

• Calls different operations through batch files.

• Has the option for combining data and is keyword driven. It helps people with less knowledge in programming to work with it.

We already have the UI smoke test and have integrated to our build system, which runs each day for multiple version of the product. This saves us a lot of time.

* Product is not stable enough and it crashes often

The application under test is a complex scientific application developed in C++ & C# and use different technologies. So when I try to do Name mapping, it sometimes hangs and have to restart Test complete

* Checking from TestComplete to TFS has issues.

I mostly try to checkin the changes with Visual studio as TestComplete hangs while you try to check in with many changes directly to TFS from Testcomplete.

* Possibility to run a part of keyword tests through TestExecute

Consider you have a keyword test with 10 individual tests. By using test execute, you can only run the main one, not the individual ones.
So I like to have the possibility of running from the 3rd test or just running the 5th one.The option is not present in TestExecute (you can do it in Test complete).

It would help if it were more stable as it sometimes hangs and crashes.

We have different version of the product and it framework/project was easily scalable and used by other projects.

We had multiple technical training sessions which were helpful and almost all the answers are in the community.

When I started at this company, they were using TestComplete.

Getting used to product did take some time.

The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP.

We had a choice with Coded UI as we developed it using C#. However, TestComplete is the preferred choice one over coded UI, as it needed to grow more as a test tool.

Get training and decide on a framework that suited for your application. It always depends on what you want to do with the tool.

I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers.

We are consultants. So we simply provide an automated solution to a client, then move on. We don’t use the product in our day to day work.

The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT.

In UFT, using descriptive programming for a web page you can use.

Browser(description).WebList(description).Select anything.

Regardless of how many panes, frames, panels etc are in the hierarchy before the Weblist object.

But in Smartbear you have to store every frame, panel etc.

So that if you didn’t use the ‘Alias’ functionality you would have an object description miles long.

But even having to use the Alias, you still have to add each and every frame, panel, etc. whereas in UFT you can just use page.object and it will find the object on the page (as long as you’re using unique descriptions!!) without worrying about frames, panes, etc.

We have used this solution for about two years.

I did not encounter any issues with stability.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

I didn’t require any technical support.

I routinely use SmartBear, UFT, and SilkTest. I fit the application used to whatever my client requires.

The initial setup was very straightforward. Even the mobile testing side was easy to setup

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. It makes it an excellent cost saving alternative.

I use several tools.

As with all tools, verify that it will do what you need for a reasonable price.

We mainly use the solution for test automation. 

The programming capability, as well as the record and play, make the solution very easy to use.

The way that it's licensed is also quite attractive. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward and simple. 

It's scalable. 

It has a very good run time.

The solution is mainly stable. 

The integration tools could be better. It would be useful if we could use it with other test management tools.

We'd like to see the solution add a few more features to the offering.

I've used the solution for more than five years. 

By and large, it is a stable product. There may be some bug fixes needed here or there. however, for the most part, it's fine. 

The solution is scalable. 

We aren't a very big company. Maybe 20 people are using the solution. Most of them are test automation engineers.

Technical support is average. It's not bad, nor is it outstanding. 

Neutral

I did not previously use a different solution. 

The company does, however, also use IBM tools. 

It is an easy solution to set up. The deployment takes minutes. It's very fast to set up.

We only need one person to maintain the solution. 

Our own team handled the implementation. We didn't need any outside assistance from integrators or consultants. 

The solution is around $1500. Some are perpetual licenses, and some get a yearly report card. 

Our team occasionally does test other options. 

We had some sort of partnership with the product.

I'm not sure which version we're using. The version we're using is likely two years old. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.