Progress Test Studio vs. TestComplete

It is very good for testers who have little coding experience but are willing to learn. It is very good for regression testing and really helps us identify issues that could have been a detriment to our end users. It is also great to keep track of the performance of pages across time.

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 to configure.
• Plugins can be integrated easily with visual studio.
• Takes less time to run all the test scenarios, [and] also generates graphics report for all the tests.
• Keeps bugs [out of] the production.

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

• Client start-up time is a bit slow. Application is a bit sluggish, when there is a lot of tests open.
• Automated scheduling environment is a bit challenging to maintain.

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

Test Studios had a smaller foot print and allowed us to ease into deploying it in the company. The online help was a great benefit to getting started and the evaluation period allowed us to fully run though the product before purchasing it. Cost difference between the products was a big decision factor as well for the type of deployment we were looking for.

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

• Excellent results, workloads for continuous regresssion testing has been decreased by more than 50 percent.
• Time window needed for regression tests has decreased more than 50 percent.

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