Apica LoadTest vs. LoadComplete

If you are testing an application and you don't have experience in performance testing, this tool will help you to test the load with some documentation help. It's very easy to use. and if you have complex scenarios to determine the coding and adjusting graphs, the LoadComplete will not be a helpful tool for you.

Incentivized

• We have been using LoadComplete in the Tech Department. I usually use LoadComplete to test the speed and loads of several applications we develop in-house.
• Moreover, we have also used LoadComplete to create reports and at the same time report any issues that we notice during a certain load.
• It is an affordable platform.
• LoadComplete has a lot of good features which has made my life so much easier so there are many pros of this tool as well. It is quite easy to use and comes in very handy.

Incentivized

• Slow when the size of tests increase
• Coding is not possible
• Need to support flexibility for a framework that can be customized based on needs

Incentivized

Usability is really good because being an enterprise tool that might be an easy option to convince users to try this tool. It has a lot of easy-to-use, cool options.

Incentivized

Customer support is good. If any concerns are raised, they are usually resolved soon, but when questioned about a feature LoadComplete does not support, it usually takes more time to resolve.

Incentivized

We chose loadcomplete because we already use SmartBear software for other automation solutions. Porting over test cases is easy and a user can have a test up and running within minutes. I do wish SmartBear would have better support and I haven't used any other testing tool in a while to make a comparison.

Incentivized

• Many built-in features (like auto data correlation, load distributing etc) will save time for development.

Incentivized