LT Browser vs. TestComplete

I think LT Browser is one of the best programs I know to perform performance, usability, and experience tests on websites because it has a wide range of tools for this purpose; in addition, I consider that its price is affordable for professionals or freelancers with little income as well as for large companies that want the best tools, best of all, is that Lamdatest offers a free plan for students and I think LT Browser is also a very good tool for learning. On the other hand, and being quite honest, I can't find scenarios where LT Browser is not suitable in its area of application or what this software is specialized in.

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

• LT Browser is to create, test and debug multiple web and mobile sites.
• Ideal for finding code errors and share bugs through our favorite project management/bug tracking tools, like Jira, Asana, GitHub, etc.
• LT Browser works fine, saves a lot of time in testing.

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

• Geolocation feature is not present
• We can test on only two devices side by side. It should be more than two.
• Only 30 minutes access in free plan

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

One such product that my team eagerly anticipates testing for responsiveness is the LT Browser. The team has discovered that it is a straightforward process to test on the newest mobile devices utilizing the LT Browser. We may start testing our web pages on local systems by simply adding the URL. LT Browser's native developer tools enable us to make modifications to our code right away. It has a pre-installed selection of well-known devices and can operate in simulated mode.

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

• Too many updates. And whenever you update you have to log in again
• I remember it used to crash one or twice in a week initially. Though it is much less frequent now.

• 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