IBM DevOps Test Performance vs. TestComplete

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
IBM DevOps Test Performance
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
IBM DevOps Test Performance helps software testing teams test earlier and more frequently by shifting testing left. IBM DevOps Test Performance validates the scalability of web and server applications, identifies the presence and cause of system performance bottlenecks and reduces load testing. Software testing teams can execute performance tests that analyze the impact of load on applications.N/A
TestComplete
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
TestComplete is a GUI test automation tool that enables users of all skill levels to test the UI of every desktop, web, and mobile application. TestComplete is best suited for testers, automation engineers, and QA teams in any industry.
$2,256
per license
Pricing
IBM DevOps Test PerformanceTestComplete
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Node-Locked Base
2,256
per license
Node-Locked Pro
3,950
per license
Float - Base
5,077
per license
Float - Pro
7,901
per license
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
IBM DevOps Test PerformanceTestComplete
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsPay for only the modules needed. TestComplete Pro includes all three modules: desktop, web, and mobile, at a bundled price point, as well as access to the parallel testing engine, TestExecute. TestComplete has additional add-ons, including TestExecute and the Intelligent Quality Add-On.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
IBM DevOps Test PerformanceTestComplete
Best Alternatives
IBM DevOps Test PerformanceTestComplete
Small Businesses
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.6 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 7.0 out of 10
Enterprises
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 7.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
IBM DevOps Test PerformanceTestComplete
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(0 ratings)
7.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
7.8
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
6.6
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
6.7
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
IBM DevOps Test PerformanceTestComplete
Likelihood to Recommend
Go for IBM RPT if: 1. You're testing a Java-based Web application with HTTP protocol 2. You wanted to distribute the load across machines easily 3. Your team is in learning phase/not really introduced to a wide range of performance testing tools Do not go for IBM RPT if: 1. You wanted to test REST or any other advanced protocols 2. Your system under test demands a very high user load 3. Your application is written in .NET or any other platform except Java.
Read full review
Best suited to smaller unit test or tests broken up, couple of forms at a time Not suited - larger regressions test involving multiple systems. - my main regression involving payments has been unsuccessful for the last 3 years despite all working fine separately and while being watched
Read full review
Pros
  • Data Parameterisation/ Data Correlation is made simpler compared to its competitors
  • Distributed Load Testing is easier to set up
  • Performance metric gathering while a test is in progress
  • Th look and Feel really helps a beginner to understand and work with.
Read full review
  • TestComplete is great for working with our non-web applications.
  • TestComplete allows us to interface with our web application in a robust way.
  • Despite the age of our architecture, TestComplete handles the old stuff that's been around a while as well as the newer technology when we are able to implement it.
Read full review
Cons
  • Memory utilization could have been improved.(Eats up system's RAM)! It may crash if a test is conducted with the heavy load if adequate RAM is not available in the VM/host machine.
  • Licensing could have been made simpler. IBM's licensing method is difficult to follow.
  • Support for protocols other than HTTP. Not really up to the current trend.
Read full review
  • Would love to see TC be a plugin for Visual Studio. Instead of VBScript or JavaScript, to use C# or VB.NET
  • Easier to set up with iOS. Android is not bad but iOS seems slow and confusing to get up and running
  • Built-in PDF reading support, built in Excel API
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
No answers on this topic
We have bigger test automation pack using test complete at the same time we also think this is not good performing tool for large number of test automation scripts.
Read full review
Usability
No answers on this topic
It is usable when you become accustomed to its quirks. Not using it for two months and then you need to re-learn the quirks for some features (but some quirks are so awful that they will never fade from your memory). So, when using it regularly, it is possible to be quite productive, if no big correction in name mapping is needed.
Read full review
Support Rating
No answers on this topic
Some bugs were quickly resolved, but most UX quirks of the tool are just marked "as designed". No follow up for enhancement request.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
No answers on this topic
If you develop a mobile application and your testing process goes in cloud, probably you will face a problem - how to implement a stable connection between your mobile devices and testing servers
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Cost/Licensing: While JMeter is an opensource testing tool from Apache, compared to IBM RPT and HP LoadRunner, RPT is much cheaper than Loadrunner. Functionality: JMeter provides basic functionalities which are adequate for performance testing, however advanced features are not available (such as load testing with GUI, reporting is very basic etc.). But when it comes to Loadrunner, it offers very broad features and supports a variety of protocols. So in this category, Loadrunner is a winner, but RPT is better than JMeter. Ease of operating: JMeter is easy compared to LoadRunner, but it has old GUI and look and feel is not that great to understand. Also, most of the things are to be done in a command line, non-GUI mode. While LoadRunner is very advanced with many options, which also confusing sometimes. But RPT, on the other hand, maintains a balance between simplicity and offering of different features. So winner: RPT.
Read full review
TestComplete stacks up against them in terms of GUI and seamless performance. It records each and every step and action been performed in the application and produces a detailed report in a well-structured manner. It can connect and access seamlessly among various databases directly to speed up the testing process.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Accuracy in metrics, thus improving system's performance
  • Costs less compared to competitor like HP LoadRunner
  • Helped the team of beginners learn things quickly
Read full review
  • Improved product quality overall, since automating tedious tests frees up time and is not prone to fatigue
  • When getting started - depending on the complexity of the software/UI tested - it can be a time sink before it brings actual value, and changes to the structure of the UI need to be communicated early, so the changes can be implemented on time to run the automation
  • Once set up, the maintenance cost is low, and the automation frees up a lot of resources especially in an agile environment where there are a lot of releases that would need regression tests.
Read full review
ScreenShots