Ghost Inspector vs. TestComplete

1. It's amazing for all kinds of browser testing. 2. Very easy to use and you can implement it to cover your tests in a short time. 3. You don't need to be a coding guru, many stuff are autogenerated or builtin and can be easily implemented without huge efforts 4. Reporting and UI is easy to understand and navigate through

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

• UI Integration tests
• Asynchronas execution of suites and tests
• Easy way to generate steps of the tests with Chrome plugin

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

• The number of available integrations is small, but I see more integrations are coming on the way
• Provide builtin alerting system in case of test failures
• Improve provide more roles not only user and administrator. A viewer role for example

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

1. Faster in terms of time when building the integration browser tests 2. No or minimum development skills needed. 3. No server management is needed on our end. 4. Covers a lot of browsers and cases 5. Builtin integrations for different stuff like slack and PD 6. Fast and provides asynchronous executions

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

• We saved a lot of money by using this tool instead of purchasing expensive ones
• The implementation of integrations test was supposed to take 6 months of development. With GI it took 2 months only
• Training QA to build integration tests using GI is much less that any other tool that might need development skills

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