LoadComplete vs. TestComplete

I think that LoadComplete is adequate when you have Testcomplete. If LoadComplete is not paired with Testcomplete then there would be a bit of a learning curve. People who are already using Testcomplete will find it easy to start with LoadComplete but the tool itself has a lot to improve and support customization to suit our needs.

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

• Easy and handy UI options to select
• Good support from documentation
• Eye-catching results

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

• Some graphs remain empty, I would like a description of why a certain graph cannot gather data.
• Allow user to customize the graph.

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

Usability is really good because being an enterprise tool that might be an easy option to convince users to try this tool. It has a lot of easy-to-use, cool options.

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

Customer support is good. If any concerns are raised, they are usually resolved soon, but when questioned about a feature LoadComplete does not support, it usually takes more time to resolve.

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

JMeter is a more flexible tool because it gives the possibility to write scripts.

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

• This tool always yields eye-catching results. It has good support from the documentation. Also, it generates detailed reports which is a very good thing.
• There is also a record and play feature in LoadComplete which means all applications can be recorded like Applications Servers’ Metric and so on.
• This tool has a good reporting and record playback due to which I will recommend it.

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