Playwright vs. TestComplete

Easy to code and help in sanity regression and functional test cases

Incentivized

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

• API
• UI
• Performance

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

• bigger adoption
• mobile testing

Incentivized

• 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

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

It makes automating complex user interactions easier, fits right into our CI/CD for continuous testing, and works great across different browsers. The Documentation is a plus, you don't really need to search a lot to understand and find what you need for the coding. The community is small but very helpful, which makes it a breeze to use and a must-have for keeping our software in top shape.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

Some bugs were quickly resolved, but most UX quirks of the tool are just marked "as designed". No follow up for enhancement request.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

We selected Playwright over the rest for several reasons. The learning curve is faster, making it easier for our team to get up to speed quickly. The setup is pretty straithtforwared, minimal configurartion needed and a great example included in the configuration which includes all the basics to start writing using that spec as a placeholder. Compared to Cypress, Playwright support multiple browsers out of the box, giving us broader testing coverage. Appium is great for mobile testing, but extremely slow.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

• Reduce of cost of manual testers
• Reduce of released bugs
• Reduce of costs of developer time
• Increase QA Coverage

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized