TrustRadius Insights for TestComplete are summaries of user sentiment data from TrustRadius reviews and, when necessary, third party data sources.
Business Problems Solved
TestComplete is a versatile tool that is primarily used to automate GUI interfaces for web applications and standalone applications. Users have found it particularly helpful in organizing and running tests smoothly, increasing the efficiency of their testing processes. By automating repetitive tasks and allowing more time for exploratory testing, TestComplete has helped users identify previously unknown bugs in software. It is commonly used to automate regression tests of web-based products and in-house developed software that integrates with other applications. Additionally, TestComplete has proved valuable in the banking industry for testing web and mobile applications, custom modules, and CRM systems. It has also been utilized to automate tests for simulation software and to migrate manual test cases to an automated framework. Overall, TestComplete enables users to automate testing processes, save time and effort, and perform a higher number of tests in a shorter period of time.
We attempted to use test complete to perform functional and UI tests on our windows native as well as our swift and kotlin apps. In my experience, test complete failed miserably on functional tests incorporating the mobile apps cameras. On the native windows app written in c# test complete has been nothing short of a nightmare. We find ourselves troubleshooting it more than we do our app. You can run the same test twice in a row on a dedicated vm and get the test to pass one time and fail the other with no changes made to the app your testing.
Pros
cause frustration among the entire team
Cons
better support
fixing its issues related to headless testing
running in a uniform manner where the same test fails or passes arbitrarily
better mobile support
Likelihood to Recommend
In my opinion, dont waste your money smartbear has a lot of work to do with this product.
VU
Verified User
Engineer in Engineering (Computer Software company, 11-50 employees)
We use TestComplete to automate testing of Microsoft Office AddIns that are based on .NET and WPF. We use a mix of keyword tests and scripting to create testing suites that can run autonomously and report through various checkpoints (region checkpoints for visuals, OCR checkpoints for text recognition, property checkpoints to verify the expected status of UI elements). The interfacing of scripts and keyword tests can be a hassle, but is still very doable and allows for different levels of expertise to work together. Objects can be found, identified (by their properties), and saved in the name mapping that also allows to then address them under an alias for improved usability. Finding objects is possible both by locating them on-screen or if they are in a lower hierarchy (or you'd like to add mappings for non-visual objects) the object browser is a powerful tool to analyze the whole structure of an application. This provides us with key functionality for our test automation.
Pros
Identifying UI objects and application structure
Expandability of tests through scripts and script extensions/plugins
low barrier of entry (you can get started quickly, and other's don't need much explanation to contribute on a basic level)
Possibility of Jira integration for reporting
Relatively few (and usually easy to solve) git conflicts when working simultaneously
easy handling of test data, also for iterative tests
Cons
The documentation is lackluster in many areas and especially for scripting, script extensions, and plugins, there's a lot of copy/paste. Trying to grasp a specific aspect is often impossible in these areas and it feels like one would really have to read the documentation from start to finish to not get lost. For example, the documentation for simply expanding a keyword test with a form, so the tester can specify parameters there, is completely overblown and takes a while to be reduced to the important bits.
The Name Mapping can be unstable when editing/renaming/moving objects and can lead to occasional crashes
TestComplete is not fully dpi aware and can have difficulties when operating multiple screens with different resolutions, which can lead to "click" events not hitting the actual button, and the application itself can often be way too large or small when it sized itself based on a screen it is not located on.
Mapping/interacting with objects is only possible when TestComplete can still find them after locating them. Therefore, when windows don't stay open after losing focus (by switching to TestComplete) this can be problematic, especially when trying to access elements that can not be pinpointed (either when they are not visible, have no visible representation, to begin with, or are situated below another object that blocks it)
Likelihood to Recommend
To really make the most of TestComplete, at least some scripting is necessary. TestComplete works really well with clearly identifiable objects but needs some tweaking for objects that vary in e.g. quantity. We have some elements that vary, but the vast majority of UI elements have unique identifies, and those iterative elements can also be mapped to iterations of a semi-unique element (so more of a mapping of the item type that the specific item). I doubt the usability would be near as good if more items were not clearly identifiable. In our case, most are, and we handle our tests in form of nested keyword tests that occasionally also implement scripting when needed. Tedious tests like Verification of the correct presence and status of UI elements in all possible scenarios, and iterative tests of e.g. input values and combinations of such, are made easy to set up, execute and evaluate.
VU
Verified User
Employee in Quality Assurance (Computer Software company, 51-200 employees)
We use TestComplete to automate the regression tests of our products. Since our products are constantly improving and growing we need something that assists us in finding unpredicted bugs and searching bugs in already existing features, so that our release doesn't take that much time just for regression and we can concentrate more on new features. [Therefore] we try to fully automate our regression list in TestComplete.
Pros
Git integration
Compatible with many software products, web applications, mobile applications
A lot of build in actions
Project structure is very good
Cons
User cannot sort folders in an individual order
Working in documents is not supported (like Word documents)
Likelihood to Recommend
When you are comfortable with writing scripts you can use TestComplete almost for everything you want to do. Since I am not accustomed to writing scripts and do not use them, I can still say that I can use TestComplete for every task that I [have had up to] now. My task is to write tests for MS Word and [I've] only [had] a single problem, which is that TestComplete cannot perform actions on the actual document. So I needed to bypass this and that was also not as hard as I initially thought. I think TestComplete gives you a good amount of actions, checkpoints, and other features to help you realize your tests.
VU
Verified User
Employee in Quality Assurance (Computer Software company, 51-200 employees)
We use TestComplete as the test automation tool for our suite Windows Forms applications and modules - over 100 different modules in total. It allows users without an existing test automation background to develop automated test suites and execute those on demand. This leads to increased accuracy and repeatability of our tests while reducing the time it takes to run our regression suites.
Pros
Recording test steps and generating code for them
Support for multiple languages
Can be used for both desktop and browser applications
Easy for beginners to get started
Cons
Missing git integration
No easy way to see where functions and methods are reused throughout the test suite
Users with a development background may find the UI clunky to use compared to an IDE like Visual Studio or JetBrains
Likelihood to Recommend
TestComplete is really well suited to companies that need to automate desktop applications or do not have existing automation skills in-house. Other tools such as selenium are really well suited to browser applications but have a steep learning curve. In contrast, TestComplete users can get up and running quickly because the recording tool will generate code for them which allows something of value to be generated quickly. While TestComplete can also be used with browser applications, there are better tools to use if that is all you need to automate. Those who are used to IDEs such as JetBrains or Visual Studio will find TestComplete code features to be more limited but it is fine for most automation tasks.
VU
Verified User
Manager in Information Technology (Computer Software company, 51-200 employees)
UI Testing of MS Office Plugins, which we provide to about 2 Mio Users worldwide. Used in Powerpoint, Excel, Word, and Outlook. Testing covers using Microsoft Office Features as well as windows and functionality of our add-ins. We use picture comparison and value comparison to verify our results. Especially our add-in for Powerpoint charts uses highly customized windows and menus in overlays over the actual Powerpoint charts.
Pros
In deep analysis of the program structure and hierarchy
Easy to learn for basic tests
Frequent updates
Cons
Application of script based test routines
Integration of Testexecute machines in the main UI
Picture comparison is very fleaky
Likelihood to Recommend
Good for easy UI. Hard to use if it gets more complicated, unusual, or dynamic.
VU
Verified User
Team Lead in Quality Assurance (Computer Software company, 51-200 employees)
We are migrating Manual TestCases to an Automated framework using TestComplete. I am responsible for creating this framework integrating TestComplete with Jenkins and the qTest management tool. Our software is responsible for simulation and is based on C++ with MFC library and for testing. Our main problem with automation is correct create locators and mapping for all of our cases in-app which contains a lot of old code and new approach and [integrating] it with one testing framework
Pros
OCR Text Recognition
Easy for manual testers
A lot of languages supported
Cons
Python interpreter is POOR - no possibility to install using pip, no terminal...
More support for CI/CD like Jenkins
OCR actions could have more built-in functionality for keyword-in scripts you can easily extend
Likelihood to Recommend
Generally, TestComplete is an easy-to-use tool. Great for manual testers who cannot [program] at all, nice for automated testers, but there is a lot of things [that] can be added as built-in functions. For OCR check the correct pattern of words 1. a 2. b 3. c etc. There could be added silent execution support for example TestComplete automatically creates a VM and run on it the tests. Support for installing and uninstalling tested apps etc.
I used [TestComplete] with ASP software in [the] testing team. It is flexible [and easy to] define our automation framework and scripts according to what we need. I design the test cases based on user scenarios then use TestComplete to execute [and] collect results [that] then generate the reports. It is easy to analyze the issues based on the Testcomplete report.
Pros
TestComplete couldn't identify all objects in my software but we could declare some class/function to do this.
We could use the command line to call TestExecute to execute the scripts automatically.
It supports multiple OS and it could update in time once MicroSoft releases new OS.
Cons
It doesn't support HTML5 well but i would like to use the same tool to test all the tested software.
It is strongly dependent on the screen resolution. if it could include embedded resolution to execute then it would be better.
Some objects couldn't be identified correctly and we have to spend more time to analysis the reason. If TestComplete could provide more possibilities, then it would be nice.
Likelihood to Recommend
TestComplete could support test C++ application [as] well. There are many embedded functions [that] are compatible with the tested application.
We are using TestComplete to automate Delphi-based thick client GUI testing, complementing what is done via unit and integration testing. As we are using advanced components like VirtualTreeView, the ability to write our own plugins was decisive in the decision to move forward with TestComplete when we evaluated automated test environments. Pricing is fair and support has always been there when we needed it which cannot be said of all actors in this market. All in all, we are very pleased with TestComplete.
Pros
Accessing components by name instead of coordinates.
Reporting is detailed enough.
Summary emails are easy to understand.
Cons
Plugins documentation is partly missing.
Auto recording is a bit too detailed.
Likelihood to Recommend
We have only been using TestComplete with Delphi applications and it clearly feels right at home with such applications. The ability to identify components in all containers is a very important feature as it allows more robust test harnesses, ones that are not dependent on the position of items on the screen. This means less maintenance when refactoring user interfaces, or simply when fixing typos in the displayed text.
VU
Verified User
Engineer in Information Technology (Computer Software company, 11-50 employees)
TestComplete is our primary automation tool for regression testing
Pros
Easy to use
Continuous Updates
Excellent Support
Feature rich
Cons
Parallel testing
Test publishing
Likelihood to Recommend
Whenever test automation is needed, TestComplete is the best tool, it can integrate with multiple sources to read and write data with built-in connectors, easy to lean and support multiple programming languages
