BitBar vs. TestComplete

CrossBrowserTesting is a great tool to use when you have a new page or new content that you want to test on an array of devices/browsers. In the diverse online world nowadays, it is nearly impossible to ensure optimization for every case. CBT allows you to get closer to that goal.

Incentivized

To really make the most of TestComplete, at least some scripting is necessary. TestComplete works really well with clearly identifiable objects but needs some tweaking for objects that vary in e.g. quantity. We have some elements that vary, but the vast majority of UI elements have unique identifies, and those iterative elements can also be mapped to iterations of a semi-unique element (so more of a mapping of the item type that the specific item). I doubt the usability would be near as good if more items were not clearly identifiable. In our case, most are, and we handle our tests in form of nested keyword tests that occasionally also implement scripting when needed. Tedious tests like Verification of the correct presence and status of UI elements in all possible scenarios, and iterative tests of e.g. input values and combinations of such, are made easy to set up, execute and evaluate.

Incentivized

• Allows me to test on our development server with ease which is behind a firewall.
• Using automation for my tests.
• Screenshots of the problems on each page.
• Ability to jump between screen sizes quickly.

Incentivized

• TestComplete is great for working with our non-web applications.
• TestComplete allows us to interface with our web application in a robust way.
• Despite the age of our architecture, TestComplete handles the old stuff that's been around a while as well as the newer technology when we are able to implement it.

Incentivized

• Test case support is somewhat limited in customization ability.
• Not a unique problem to them (or their 'fault'), but content behind VPN or intranet cannot be scanned.
• Pricing with tier level and features can sometimes be confusing (ie. what is and what is not included).

Incentivized

• Would love to see TC be a plugin for Visual Studio. Instead of VBScript or JavaScript, to use C# or VB.NET
• Easier to set up with iOS. Android is not bad but iOS seems slow and confusing to get up and running
• Built-in PDF reading support, built in Excel API

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: 1. Selenium is Open source tool 2. Needs proper framework development and integration with multiple 3rd party tools 3. Not much secure 4. Needs scripting knowledge for people working on it 5. takes time and effort CrossBrowser Testing: 1. Licensed , so secure 2. Less time , less effort 3. Quick results 4. No scripting language knowledge needed 5. More coverage 6. Without any framework creation also we can test on multiple devices/browsers

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

• By using CrossBrowserTesting we are saving many hours a week in manual work hours.
• Our automated Selenium tests run in a fraction of the time it takes to manually test our components, so we can spend more time building great user experiences and less time triaging bugs.

• On one of the applications, I've reduced the testing time from a month to five days.
• I don't always have time to create tests for new features, then I revert to manual testing.
• The Zephyr reports have given management insight on what happens in the QA department.

Incentivized