Applitools vs. TestComplete

Scenarios where Applitools is well suited: Cross-browser and Cross-device Testing: Applitools shines in scenarios where applications need to be tested across multiple browsers (chrome,ie,firefox) UI Component Libraries: When working with UI component libraries or design systems, Applitools allows to capture and maintain a visual baseline for each component, Applitools may not work with highly animated sites and in non visual testing purpose

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

• visual testing
• cross browser testing
• easy integration with testing frameworks

Incentivized

• 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

Incentivized

• Test Maintenance- no built-in mechanism to automatically handle dynamic or volatile elements,
• Test Configuration Flexibility- ability to specify different tolerances or thresholds for specific test elements or regions within a single test
• Test Execution Performance- larger test suites or complex visual validations can sometimes lead to longer execution times.

Incentivized

• TestComplete could stand to have a simplified view for different types of users. For instance, as a manager/architecture guy, I'm not so interested in getting into the code and am more interested in file-based interactions.
• TestComplete could use more integration with reporting for things like TeamCity to improve test status visibility.

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 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

Applitools is better than browser stack & LambdaTest as it offers AI-Powered Testing: Applitools leverages AI and machine learning algorithms to enhance its visual testing capabilities. The AI algorithms help in automatically identifying and classifying visual differences. Applitools introduces the concept of "Smart Locators," which are dynamic identifiers used to locate and identify elements in a more efficient manner.

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

• cost effective
• faster delivery of product
• less error prone testing

Incentivized

• Saves hundreds of man-hours with either QA testing or data entry
• With the small cost of the product, it has saved the company money with both employee costs as well as the cost of mistakes made by human error or software bugs

Incentivized