TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management vs. TestComplete

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management

    Score5 out of 10
    N/AIBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) is an integrated suite for managing requirements, engineering work, system and software models, and verification activities across complex product-development programs. It is used by systems engineers, software teams, test organizations, project managers, and compliance teams in industries such as automotive, aerospace and defense, medical devices, and public infrastructure.N/A

    TestComplete

    Score8 out of 10
    N/ATestComplete is a GUI test automation tool that enables users of all skill levels to test the UI of every desktop, web, and mobile application. TestComplete is best suited for testers, automation engineers, and QA teams in any industry.

    $2,256

    per license

    Pricing
    IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementTestComplete
    Editions & Modules
    No answers on this topic
    Node-Locked Base
    2,256
    per license
    Node-Locked Pro
    3,950
    per license
    Float - Base
    5,077
    per license
    Float - Pro
    7,901
    per license
    Offerings
    Pricing Offerings
    IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementTestComplete
    Free Trial
    NoYes
    Free/Freemium Version
    NoNo
    Premium Consulting/Integration Services
    NoNo
    Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
    Additional Details—Pay for only the modules needed. TestComplete Pro includes all three modules: desktop, web, and mobile, at a bundled price point, as well as access to the parallel testing engine, TestExecute. TestComplete has additional add-ons, including TestExecute and the Intelligent Quality Add-On.
    More Pricing Information
    Community Pulse
    IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementTestComplete
    Considered Both Products
    IBM
    No answer on this topic
    SmartBear
    No answer on this topic
    Key User Insights
    Would buy again
    78%
    Would buy again
    7 Answers
    93%
    Would buy again
    25 Answers
    Delivers good value for the price
    88%
    Delivers good value for the price
    7 Answers
    88%
    Delivers good value for the price
    22 Answers
    Happy with the feature set
    89%
    Happy with the feature set
    8 Answers
    93%
    Happy with the feature set
    25 Answers
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    100%
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    5 Answers
    85%
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    22 Answers
    Implementation went as expected
    86%
    Implementation went as expected
    6 Answers
    85%
    Implementation went as expected
    22 Answers
    Best Alternatives
    IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementTestComplete
    Small Businesses
    Polarion ALM
    Score10 out of 10
    No answers on this topic
    Medium-sized Companies
    PTC Windchill RV&S
    Score2 out of 10
    OpenText UFT One
    Score8 out of 10
    Enterprises
    Polarion ALM
    Score10 out of 10
    SoapUI Open Source
    Score8.3 out of 10
    All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
    User Ratings
    IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementTestComplete
    Likelihood to Recommend
    3.0
    (22 ratings)
    7.0
    (88 ratings)
    Likelihood to Renew
    8.0
    (6 ratings)
    8.1
    (6 ratings)
    Usability
    4.0
    (5 ratings)
    7.8
    (7 ratings)
    Support Rating
    5.0
    (3 ratings)
    6.6
    (7 ratings)
    Implementation Rating
    10.0
    (1 ratings)
    6.7
    (4 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementTestComplete
    Likelihood to Recommend
    IBM
    The software is robust enough to handle highly complex software development or other product development and can be used well beyond the range to do what a client needs. However, because of the inability to hold its users to proper best practices, things can get wildly out of hand and cascade over the years, creating unnecessary technical debt. The system has a lot of usable features, but they don't funnel users toward the correct processes and practices.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    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
    Read full review
    Pros
    IBM
    • Open Services supporting Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC).
    • Required definition management and managed capabilities enabling.
    • Rational DOORS Web Access for local on the test field presence.
    • On-sites established reporting system.
    • Approved linking requirements to test plans
    • Engineering Requirements Management DOORS traces requirements thereby eliminates manually processes and spreadsheets, for improved productivity.
    • Returns the investment efficiently.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    • 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
    Read full review
    Cons
    IBM
    • I feel like it is too heavy sometimes and updating is not very straight forward. For example, if I want to change an incident ticket (IN) to a service request (SR) and add some comment for the change, I have to first change the IN to SR, then click refresh which takes a few seconds, then add a comment. If I forget the refresh step, my comment will be discarded without warning like my ticket is not in the latest status. This also happens when somebody else changes the ticket during my edit as I can not lock the ticket exclusively.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    • 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
    Read full review
    Likelihood to Renew
    IBM
    At the moment we are required by contract to continue to use the IBM DOORS software for our current client. Given that it can be expensive, if we were to use it after our current client's needs were met, we would have to secure other projects in order to justify the continued use of the software.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    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
    Read full review
    Usability
    IBM
    The UI is terrible and not intuitive. Users need training in order to complete tasks. Much like SAP, it's not the clearest tool. The tracing feature is especially complicated because you must write the scripts yourself. There is a learning curve. Also, even the setup, installation, and logging in each time takes a considerable amount of time.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    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
    Read full review
    Support Rating
    IBM
    It does a basic job and has the potential to complete some robust reporting tasks, however, it really is a clunky piece of software with a terrible user interface that makes using it routinely quite unpleasant. Many of our legacy and maintenance projects still use DOORS but our department and company use many alternatives and are looking for better tools.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    Some bugs were quickly resolved, but most UX quirks of the tool are just marked "as designed". No follow up for enhancement request.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Implementation Rating
    IBM
    No problems
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    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
    Read full review
    Alternatives Considered
    IBM
    It was easier to do all the change management-related activities, even configurations were handled very effectively. New process definitions and initiatives made it easier for better project deliverables. Effective resource allocations and better reporting and defect management. The overall cost of the tool is great too and well within budget.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    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
    Read full review
    Return on Investment
    IBM
    • It's part of CLM suite so it can be used to manage the whole lifecycle with tight integration with development module (Rational Team Concert) and quality module (Rational Quality Manager).
    • Comprehensive reports and dashboards provide better visibility.
    • License cost is on higher side.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    • 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
    Read full review
    ScreenShots