IBM DevOps Test UI vs. TestComplete

IBM Rational Functional Tester is good for automating thick applications.

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

• An execution log in html format provides detailed information of the actions, verifications, and screenshots with timestamps.
• Quick response and good support. IBM releases frequent updates to handle customer needs and fix issues.
• A solid object inspector, extensive functional library and playback monitor.

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

• Installation or updates were not always perfect. Would have to clean previous installations or reinstall Java if there were errors.
• No or very limited support of browsers outside of Internet Explorer.
• Uses a lot of memory, can have memory issues on large tests.

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

Selenium is similar to IBM Rational Functional Tester but is not as user friendly and does not support thick applications. Visual Studio Coded UI is newer so not as refined; the object inspector/management and execution log results is poor compared to IBM Rational Functional Tester.

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

• Speeds up and broadens the testing cycle by using machine time for regression testing.
• Frees up time for testers to focus on critical items outside the automated suite.

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