Gatling Enterprise vs. TestComplete

Gatling requires Scala code to run high-quality scenarios. The recorder helps, but does not provide an immediately usable path. In the results, it is difficult to analyse the errors encountered during a load test. We can identify when errors occur, but it is challenging to pinpoint the cause at a given moment.

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

• Quick simple report.
• Heavy loads.
• API test.

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

• Scripting with user interface.
• More reports.
• Recording user path.

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

Our tests are only run via an integration platform (Jenkins), and only the results are analysed using Gatling reports. The difficulty lies in maintaining the Scala scripts, which must keep pace with changes in the application over time. New use cases must be thoroughly documented for testers who are not directly involved in development.

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

Gatling can only be used for high-load tests with a paid license and only for tests with a reduced graphical user interface (GUI). Unlike OctoPerf, NeoLoad, or LoadRunner, we are not limited to a fixed number of users per license. Compared with JMeter, Gatling is less resource-intensive and therefore does not require an extensive test infrastructure.

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

• Re use existing use case.
• Difficult to add other load generator.
• Cost reduction for simple tests.

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