TestComplete vs. Tuskr

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

Customizing fields and sorting make test case management easy to handle. The TCM's swift menu adjustments and dynamic graphs enhance the user experience, making it a delight to use.Few points which I do not dislike as such but can be improved. One is the ability to write longer tests. Another thing is that the UI when it comes to modifications like adding a new field, editing a field, etc requires few clicks and the path is slightly ambiguous.

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

• Its easy to import test cases in Tuskr by using the csv import feature
• Test runs are easy to create and can include test cases from multiple suits.
• Reports of test runs make it easier to track all the cases that were covered at a particular instance before giving a release signoff.

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

• When you click into a specific test, the status automatically clears. it would be nice for this to be preserved when clicking in instead of clearing
• It would be nice to be able to add comments specific to certain steps in each test, instead of just one big comment box
• Since we use Tuskr for QA, we structure it as a table with instructions and expected results. because these are side by side, sometimes it is hard to go in a step-by-step order when there are multiple QA steps to take to complete the test.

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

Tuskr suits our organization needs

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

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

I have not worked with related testing suite before but Tuskr has been the favorite platform for running test suites. It has generated positive leads from the company data by offering the necessary testing support. It is easy to integrate with other applications to suit business demands. The system generate results from various testing suites that can shared with our clients.

• 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

• Make the process to create tests a lot smoother, so increase production value by reducing bugs released to customers.
• Learning curves hinders some progress at the beginning.
• Pricing is great for a small team, worth it with 30 days trial as well.

Incentivized