SmartBear TestComplete Reviews

The artificial intelligence aspect is very useful for us.

Scaling to a cloud environment is very easy.

Scriptless approaches are very flexible compared to other scriptless automation tools.

The object identification for legacy applications that are very old can still be automated by TestComplete. The object identification is very powerful.

The stability has been good in the latest versions.

Technical support is quite helpful and they have a good community you can look for answers in as well.

The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy.

We have something called Name Mapping in TestComplete it is the only Name Mapping that is available for TestComplete. If they allowed two Name Mappings, or run Name Mapping in run time, that would be ideal.

TestComplete has its own XPath Identifiers. It auto-identifies the XPath of the application. If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better. 

Code analysis would be helpful. If they could give us a code analysis feature, similar to something called Ranorex Coach (which will give us auto-suggestions of how to use certain things), that would be ideal. In Tricentis, they have a feature whenever we identify an element or automate an element, they give a unique identification element that the tool notes when we map. Here, we don't have a feature that can mention the unique object identification kind of stuff. We need to highlight it on screen and then we need to check it. 

I've used this product for more than eight years or so.  It's been a while. 

The solution is now very stable. Four or five versions previous to the latest, if I recall, in version 10 or 11, it had some issues. However, now it is highly stable. Currently, there's nothing to worry about in terms of the stability of the product.

The solution can be scaled across the cloud. It can be scaled using the automation framework.

Technical support is good. Either we can raise a technical support ticket with them, which gets answered in 24 hours or we can use the very good community that they have. Whenever we post a query, we are able to get the answer easily from the community. It's very helpful.

The installation is very simple. In just five minutes we can install it and we don't need to do any settings for resetting - such as, for example, how we do it for Selenium or other tools. We don't require much time to deploy it. In no more than five minutes it is installed and ready to go.

The price is moderate. It's not the cheapest or the most expensive if you compare it with other competitors. It's okay. 

My company is a partner of TestComplete. I am a senior test architect in our organization.

If a company has an ecosystem and they need to automate the web, desktop, or mobile, then TestComplete is the right tool. Even if they need enterprise application automation, it's very easy. On top of that, using a scriptless approach will save a lot of time. However, users are not limited to that. They can use Python, JavaScript, VBScript, or other kinds of options. You can import external Python libraries inside it, which will give additional capabilities to the tool. It's been very useful.

Overall, I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

Mainly we use the solution for when we need to install or deploying in different applications, if necessary. We use it for testing for the most part.

It's a good solution. It works in Windows Operating System.

The automation is very good.

We can test an application across many programs with ease. We can test, for example, on Internet Explorer, or Mozilla, or Google Chrome, et cetera. 

It's very helpful that, when you have a recording in one application, in one navigator, you can replay every step in different applications. You don't need to do any different testing in different programs, you only have to do one test and replicate it in different programs.

The initial setup is easy.

The solution has a very nice interface.

The one issue we have is that the tool was installed in a local machine. Now, it's more popular when you use tools that work in online environments. It would be better if it was available on the cloud. We'd like to access it on remote desktops. I don't want to have to install it on every machine.

It would be ideal if the solution could offer one subscription for time and one for life. Right now, when you buy the solution, you need to pay for one solution. You receive one set up and you install it and it's just in that one machine. It would be ideal if they could offer one subscription where you can connect to different machines with a group subscription. Or maybe they could offer different pricing. They need to be more flexible.

I've only used the solution for maybe one or two months at this point. It hasn't been too long. It's relatively new.

The solution is stable. We didn't run into any issues. It has been good so far.

The technical support is good. They are very responsive and helpful. We are quite satisfied with eh level of support they give us.

The initials setup is not complex at all. It's pretty straightforward. It's easy. A company shouldn't have any problems with deployment.

That said, it might be hard for a normal user. You need to do a few technical things. It helps to have a bit of knowledge on your side. Otherwise, you may run into issues.

You only need one person to set everything up.

We handled the deployment ourselves. We didn't need the assistance of an integrator or consultant.

The solution doesn't have a very flexible pricing model.

I didn't look at too many other options, however, this one had a special advantage in that it works on the Windows Operating System.

We're just customers and end-users.

I'd advise new users to take a look at what they need. They need to know if they need something that can test on desktop or on mobile, et cetera. This is a good solution if you need something that works with Windows, for example.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems.

TestComplete replaced QTP as the preferred choice of tool for the organization. It is much faster, works better across technologies (esp. Flex based UI) and is better compatible with newer technologies directly out of the box. We could have our automation engineers create tests more easily. Also, we were able to set-up lab machines to enable distributed runs for more applications in a shared environment.

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 like Notepad++. Performance is another aspect which can be improved.

I've used it for one and a half years.

TestComplete was fairly easy to scale once we had the licenses in place for the organization.

We used tech support for some specific third-party grids we had to automate. The support was average and we ended up creating our own automation solution for that piece of automation.

We previously used QTP, and later moved to TestComplete as it provided more out of the box support for newer technologies like Flex and AIR.

Initial setup was very straightforward. We did face some hiccups in license procurement however, once licenses were procured the process from there was quite smooth.

We had a mixed team. The implementation was smooth overall and requires a few skilled automation experts to oversee the transition/initial implementation.

We achieved ROI in eight months from the start of implementation. Get a good automation architect to implement a good ROI directed framework. It is very easy to lose direction during a mmigration.

• QTP
• Selenium

It's easy to work with and doesn’t take much to get it setup to start working with it.

In my previous three positions, there was not a test automation solution in place. I was given the opportunity to explore options. Once I chose a solution, we were able to implement TestComplete and were able to automate about 90% of the manual testing that was done prior to implementing TestComplete.

This product continually improves and in v11, they now have Python support. This was something that I wanted and they provided it the latest version.

I've used it for 11 years.

I have not run into any issues with deployment.

I have not run into any issues with stability.

I have not run into any issues with scalability.

Another one of the many reasons why I chose TestComplete. The level of customer service and technical support can’t be beat. SmartBear always answers my questions within 24-48 hours.

They have a great website, help and forums that also help in finding the answers I need in a timely manner.

It was very straightforward which was another reason why I went with TestComplete. I was able to use the demo version (when I was searching for options) to create tests easily, so when I had to demonstrate the product to my management teams, they could easily see why TestComplete was the product for us.

The implementation was done by me. The best recommendation is to read the help guide, especially if you are using the product in different ways, like floating licenses. This is where the license server is on one machine and people have to access TestComplete that are not local. However, if you run into any issues, the customer support department is there to help in any way they can.

My ROI has been the fact that it takes less time to run all of the tests that were done previously. Prior to TestComplete, it would take over three weeks to run all of the tests that needed to be run for a release. After TestComplete, we have been able to reduce that time to less than one week.

One of the main reasons I went with TestComplete, besides the information that I already provided, was the cost for TestComplete and TestExecute. They make it very easy for large to small companies to implement without large costs. The licenses are broken down the amount of users that need to use it and they also have the option of floating licenses.

I looked at various options like QuickTest Professional, Rational Functional Tester, and SilkTest.

The test tree makes for quick work of choosing which tests you want to run at any time. Whether it's all or nothing, I can re-run parts of a test suite without having to start over again.

The Object Spy has surpassed any other "spy" tools I have ever used. It allows me to input parameters without having to write a quick Visual Basic script around it to try it. Diving deep into object trees can be made a breeze with the search function.

I would like to see improved language support, with Python being my

first choice. Visual Basic is outdated, where C# has been its

replacement for years.

This solution has been in use for almost three years, since I started working at this company. It has been mostly stable with static test cases, and only minor maintenance. The updates typically are changing search criteria. We upgraded from v9 about one year ago.

Technical support has been good. There was an issue where certain installations of TestComplete would give an ambiguous error on startup. After teleconferencing with one of their support specialists, we were able to solve it. Forum support on their community site has also been good.

No previous solution I know of was implemented prior to my employment here. Attempting to implement the same solution in UFT would have been nearly impossible.

The initial setup was straightforward. Licensing was simple, and getting the initial object mapping was painless. Only a high-level base set of object mapping was done.

The implementation was done entirely in-house. The projects were made from scratch, where function libraries & test suites were made from existing manual test cases.

• High UI technologies coverage
• Direct access to object internal properties and methods

Faster feedback on any product changes and uncovered problems before full regression starts. That can save a lot of time.

Scripting languages should be extended to support more popular programming languages like Java, C#, Ruby, Python. Many other vendors have such support or moved into such a direction. e.g. SilkTest has OpenAgent since 2008 with support of Java, C#. HP recently published LeanFT which integrates with popular development environments (Eclipse, Visual Studio). IBM solutions were initially designed for Java. Squish supports multiple languages. So, TestComplete should have support of such programming languages apart from VBScript and JScript modifications.

About three years onwards.

TestComplete had problems during long hours runs. In some cases it could crash without leaving any logs. Also, if there were some unhanded exception it could drop the error message waiting for user input. This is not really acceptable for nightly runs and required human assistance. But this problem is rather language-specific

I never had to speak to them.

I never had to speak to them.

The setup is pretty easy.

We used a vendor team. My advice for implementation is only one, follow the best practices (some of them are available on the vendor site). They were formulated based on real experiences.

ROI was never calculated explicitly, but normally the ROI point was expected to be reached after three to five months of the project.

Mainly, when we did an evaluation and comparison, TestComplete had two big advantages -

• Good technology support
• Relatively low price in comparison to other vendor tools

I'm currently are trying to apply it to our software application.

We use it for testing Windows applications for CUTE, based on the CUTE framework. For now, that's all we use it for because Complete does not suggest any other options that are appropriate for us. By that, I mean it doesn't seem to work with Mac OS, Android OS, and iOS.

I only have experience with Windows, so I find all the best features are for that operating system.

Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well.

The solution has a great feature called macro recording. With it, I can make it into a macro in a few of the languages Complete suggests. This is really useful for me, personally.

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.

Right now, Complete can test only on native Android and native iOS applications.

I've been using the solution for about a month. 

This tool is quite stable. I had only one crash, and I sent a report for this crash to technical support. Everything else seems to work perfectly. Aside from the one issue, we haven't had any other problems.

I don't have any experience, unfortunately, with scalability. We use just one instance on one machine so I've never attempted to scale the solution. There's just one user on the platform right now.

I am not sure if our organization will extend its usage in the future. We have a strong need to make this work on other platforms. We may switch to a different tool.

I do have some experience with technical support. I've found a few answers to my issues on Smart BF5. I've also had assistance with the support engineers. So far, I've been satisfied with the level of support I have been able to receive. 

I have used other solutions, including ALTA. It has good UI, but I don't know if you are really able to directly compare it to this solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. We found it simple and not too complex. Our team didn't run into any issues.

For us, deployment took two to three days.

We didn't use an integrator, reseller or consultant for the deployment. We handled the entire process ourselves.

I'm not sure if there are licensing costs involved in the solution. We simply bought the product outright and started using it.

I'm currently working with the latest version of the solution.

My advice to others is to just decide if this tool is usable for your requirements. I spent a lot of time developing some tests, but then I understood that we actually needed more platforms. That's why we will switch to another tool. That's also why it's important to check your organization's requirements. Otherwise, like us, you may need to switch.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

The opportunity to work with DevExpress and WPF objects.

• Approximately, we get new build once per week. So I need to provide smoke testing for it. In case of manual tests execution, it is needed 48 hours (six working days) to smoke it. With TestComplete, we need just eight hours (or even less - if we're using multiple machines)
• Stability and Stress testing. It is impossible to test our applications manually for 48 hours (two full days) continuously. With TestComplete, it is possible

• Better stability, as sometimes, TestComplete crashes when attempting to delete over 10 logs
• Support for the latest versions of DevExpress
• More comfortable XML editor (like in Notepad++)
• A better script editor. I will be happy, if the TestComplete editor would contain a design like the one in Visual Studio or Eclipse - errors and unusable variables being highlighte, and refactoring opporunities
• Own log viewer in TestExecute. For now, it is possible to open it only within a browser, which is not very good, because if the log is 2GB or more, it will take 10-20 minuts to open with Internet Explorer

I've used it for three years, including, v7, & v9 with TestExecute v9, and it's been in use on the project since 2010.

When we migrated from v7 to v9, we encountered a problem with using recursive code; in DelphiScript recursion was completely broken.

Sometimes, TestComplete crashes when attempting to delete over 10 logs.

It's acceptable.

It's acceptable.

I tried Visual Studio 2010 (Coded UI Tests feature). The tool was changed, because TC is cheaper and more acceptable for those apps testing. But for now, this project doesn't use QA automation and I am working in another project