TestComplete

Score7.9 out of 10

142 Reviews and Ratings

Community insights

TrustRadius Insights for TestComplete are summaries of user sentiment data from TrustRadius reviews and, when necessary, third party data sources.

Business Problems Solved

TestComplete is a versatile tool that is primarily used to automate GUI interfaces for web applications and standalone applications. Users have found it particularly helpful in organizing and running tests smoothly, increasing the efficiency of their testing processes. By automating repetitive tasks and allowing more time for exploratory testing, TestComplete has helped users identify previously unknown bugs in software. It is commonly used to automate regression tests of web-based products and in-house developed software that integrates with other applications. Additionally, TestComplete has proved valuable in the banking industry for testing web and mobile applications, custom modules, and CRM systems. It has also been utilized to automate tests for simulation software and to migrate manual test cases to an automated framework. Overall, TestComplete enables users to automate testing processes, save time and effort, and perform a higher number of tests in a shorter period of time.

Reviews

88 Reviews

TestComplete - easy to use product but needs lots of testing to produce reliable tests

Rating: 7 out of 10

December 8, 2023

Use Cases and Deployment Scope

I use TestComplete on a daily basis. For the last 3 year I have been dogged by compatibility issues, TC browser extensions issues, slowness, freezing. The product can't properly perform object recognition (if button exits then click it, if button does not exist then try.. ) Support and Account managers take a long time to respond to tickets and often the issues are blockers for me. Some of their support engineers are amazing but just take ages to get your issue to them, the phones are hardly ever answered and when they do the person can't address your issue. I find tests have to be run over 100 times to verify the results and work out any bugs to get anything stable enough to run (anything large than unit tests). I frequently get an error and the product stops error says "there has been an error" and gives not details, multiple supports ticket have been raised about this issue and they just say "it works for us" All other feature such as mobile testing (Bitbar) are additional costs - a small free amount would be nice considering the price AM just send out blanket emails to subscribers and any other emails about new products/services without any consideration to if you have the product, have already updated or are listed as the licensing contact - all other users in my licensing group regularly receive and send me the product email they get I am currently investigating alternatives as this products will if not reliable to test my WEB systems

Pros

item highlighting in Keywords tests
nice interface
can call and integrate between scripting and keywords testing
integrate to Jenkins

Cons

Reliability - running same tests over 100 times have produced less than 80% success rate
Support - blocker issue can wait for day and there is no phone support
Namemapping - system tries to update name used in multiple locations
Freezing - gets stuck in loops and and unexpected error happens like variables not available and the system won't suggest this, leaving you to debug 100+ lines of code
frequent updates that introduce encoding and browser errors - I don't believe the properly test their own product
Namemapping won't allow you to choose your own names when you first select them
keep sending email about renewing subscription and that you can get a lower price without checking if they have already sent/asked and if you are the correct contact for your account - e.g. a junior user that just joined got an email about the pricing structure and what we were paying

Likelihood to Recommend

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

Verified User

Engineer in Quality Assurance (51-200 employees)

Vetted Review

3 years of experience

Test Complete is buggier than the app your'e trying to test

Rating: 1 out of 10

Incentivized

October 18, 2022

Use Cases and Deployment Scope

We attempted to use test complete to perform functional and UI tests on our windows native as well as our swift and kotlin apps. In my experience, test complete failed miserably on functional tests incorporating the mobile apps cameras. On the native windows app written in c# test complete has been nothing short of a nightmare. We find ourselves troubleshooting it more than we do our app. You can run the same test twice in a row on a dedicated vm and get the test to pass one time and fail the other with no changes made to the app your testing.

Pros

cause frustration among the entire team

Cons

better support
fixing its issues related to headless testing
running in a uniform manner where the same test fails or passes arbitrarily
better mobile support

Likelihood to Recommend

In my opinion, dont waste your money smartbear has a lot of work to do with this product.

Verified User

Engineer in Engineering (11-50 employees)

Vetted Review

1 year of experience

Test automation of WPF-based application with TestComplete

Rating: 8 out of 10

Incentivized

January 20, 2022

Use Cases and Deployment Scope

We use TestComplete to automate testing of Microsoft Office AddIns that are based on .NET and WPF. We use a mix of keyword tests and scripting to create testing suites that can run autonomously and report through various checkpoints (region checkpoints for visuals, OCR checkpoints for text recognition, property checkpoints to verify the expected status of UI elements). The interfacing of scripts and keyword tests can be a hassle, but is still very doable and allows for different levels of expertise to work together. Objects can be found, identified (by their properties), and saved in the name mapping that also allows to then address them under an alias for improved usability. Finding objects is possible both by locating them on-screen or if they are in a lower hierarchy (or you'd like to add mappings for non-visual objects) the object browser is a powerful tool to analyze the whole structure of an application. This provides us with key functionality for our test automation.

Pros

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

Cons

The documentation is lackluster in many areas and especially for scripting, script extensions, and plugins, there's a lot of copy/paste. Trying to grasp a specific aspect is often impossible in these areas and it feels like one would really have to read the documentation from start to finish to not get lost. For example, the documentation for simply expanding a keyword test with a form, so the tester can specify parameters there, is completely overblown and takes a while to be reduced to the important bits.
The Name Mapping can be unstable when editing/renaming/moving objects and can lead to occasional crashes
TestComplete is not fully dpi aware and can have difficulties when operating multiple screens with different resolutions, which can lead to "click" events not hitting the actual button, and the application itself can often be way too large or small when it sized itself based on a screen it is not located on.
Mapping/interacting with objects is only possible when TestComplete can still find them after locating them. Therefore, when windows don't stay open after losing focus (by switching to TestComplete) this can be problematic, especially when trying to access elements that can not be pinpointed (either when they are not visible, have no visible representation, to begin with, or are situated below another object that blocks it)

Likelihood to Recommend

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.

Verified User

Employee in Quality Assurance (51-200 employees)

Vetted Review

1 year of experience

How TestComplete Eased Up Our Daily Work Life

Rating: 9 out of 10

Incentivized

January 19, 2022

Use Cases and Deployment Scope

We use TestComplete to automate the regression tests of our products. Since our products are constantly improving and growing we need something that assists us in finding unpredicted bugs and searching bugs in already existing features, so that our release doesn't take that much time just for regression and we can concentrate more on new features. [Therefore] we try to fully automate our regression list in TestComplete.

Pros

Git integration
Compatible with many software products, web applications, mobile applications
A lot of build in actions
Project structure is very good

Cons

User cannot sort folders in an individual order
Working in documents is not supported (like Word documents)

Likelihood to Recommend

When you are comfortable with writing scripts you can use TestComplete almost for everything you want to do. Since I am not accustomed to writing scripts and do not use them, I can still say that I can use TestComplete for every task that I [have had up to] now. My task is to write tests for MS Word and [I've] only [had] a single problem, which is that TestComplete cannot perform actions on the actual document. So I needed to bypass this and that was also not as hard as I initially thought. I think TestComplete gives you a good amount of actions, checkpoints, and other features to help you realize your tests.

Verified User

Employee in Quality Assurance (51-200 employees)

Vetted Review

1 year of experience

TestComplete - One of the coolest automation tools

Rating: 9 out of 10

Incentivized

January 19, 2022

Use Cases and Deployment Scope

We use it to automate one of our Windows GUI PowerPoint add-on. It address some of the workflows performed by normal PowerPoint users.

Pros

UI object recognition
Simplicity
Ease of automation and maintenance
Easy to create new test cases

Cons

Version 15.xx is little slower compared to the previous versions
There are some issues with capturing the checkpoint of disappearing drop-downs

Likelihood to Recommend

Well suited for automating single user scenarios of PowerPoint.

Jinuraj Kottackel

Senior Test Enginner in Information Technology at empower Gmbh (51-200 employees)

Vetted Review

4 years of experience

Start Test Automation quickly with TestComplete

Rating: 9 out of 10

Incentivized

January 17, 2022

Use Cases and Deployment Scope

We use TestComplete as the test automation tool for our suite Windows Forms applications and modules - over 100 different modules in total. It allows users without an existing test automation background to develop automated test suites and execute those on demand. This leads to increased accuracy and repeatability of our tests while reducing the time it takes to run our regression suites.

Pros

Recording test steps and generating code for them
Support for multiple languages
Can be used for both desktop and browser applications
Easy for beginners to get started

Cons

Missing git integration
No easy way to see where functions and methods are reused throughout the test suite
Users with a development background may find the UI clunky to use compared to an IDE like Visual Studio or JetBrains

Likelihood to Recommend

TestComplete is really well suited to companies that need to automate desktop applications or do not have existing automation skills in-house. Other tools such as selenium are really well suited to browser applications but have a steep learning curve. In contrast, TestComplete users can get up and running quickly because the recording tool will generate code for them which allows something of value to be generated quickly. While TestComplete can also be used with browser applications, there are better tools to use if that is all you need to automate. Those who are used to IDEs such as JetBrains or Visual Studio will find TestComplete code features to be more limited but it is fine for most automation tasks.

Verified User

Manager in Information Technology (51-200 employees)

Vetted Review

5 years of experience

TestComplete - Powerful Automation Tool (Bundled with Advanced Features)

Rating: 10 out of 10

Incentivized

January 12, 2022

Use Cases and Deployment Scope

TestComplete has been chosen in our Organization to automate the Business Flows performed in IFS (Industrial and Financial Systems) ERP Applications. It will run all the test cases (scenarios) for different modules (Order to Cash, Procurement to Pay, Finance, HR, and many more) in the application and will generate a detailed test report. Manual Intervention is not needed. This has benefited us in terms of Regression and Non-Regression Testing.

Pros

Detailed Test Report with Screenshots of Every Actions performed in the Application
Integrates smoothly with all third Party Applications and Software's
It supports various Scripting Languages (VBScript, Python, JavaScript)

Cons

License Cost for TestComplete Pro is at the high level.
It supports only Windows

Likelihood to Recommend

Highly recommend TestComplete to all the IT Professionals looking for Seamless Automatic Executions of Complicated and Critical Tasks in their Applications, Tools, or Softwares. All the actions performed in any platform (be it in Desktop, Mobile, or Web) can be automated efficiently and effectively with no or minimal human intervention.

Verified User

Team Lead in Research & Development (11-50 employees)

Vetted Review

3 years of experience

Ups and downs, but it's the only one that can do the job on complicated WPF UIs

Rating: 7 out of 10

Incentivized

December 13, 2021

Use Cases and Deployment Scope

UI Testing of MS Office Plugins, which we provide to about 2 Mio Users worldwide. Used in Powerpoint, Excel, Word, and Outlook. Testing covers using Microsoft Office Features as well as windows and functionality of our add-ins. We use picture comparison and value comparison to verify our results. Especially our add-in for Powerpoint charts uses highly customized windows and menus in overlays over the actual Powerpoint charts.

Pros

In deep analysis of the program structure and hierarchy
Easy to learn for basic tests
Frequent updates

Cons

Application of script based test routines
Integration of Testexecute machines in the main UI
Picture comparison is very fleaky

Likelihood to Recommend

Good for easy UI. Hard to use if it gets more complicated, unusual, or dynamic.

Verified User

Team Lead in Quality Assurance (51-200 employees)

Vetted Review

4 years of experience

A great software to automate your application. Recommended.

Rating: 9 out of 10

Incentivized

December 13, 2021

Use Cases and Deployment Scope

I used TestComplete for 2 of our products. 1. Ours is a read-only CAD tool, where we used the object mapping technique to create the test cases and it worked well for us except for a few of the exceptions where object mapping failed. 2. It is an add-on for the Creo Parametric, where we recognize the features of the object/CAD model.

Pros

Object Mapping is really good.
Validation of test cases (checkpoints) is user friendly and intuitive.
Support of different script languages such as python, VBSript, JavaScript, etc.
Help documentation is very detailed and clear.
Grouping of the Test Cases and in detail test reports.

Cons

Recording in the case where object mapping is not possible, coordinate recording needs a better approach. Sometimes coordinates are not getting clicked for the desired tab and other tab gets clicked when the test is rerun.

Likelihood to Recommend

TestComplete is best suited for applications where object mapping is captured perfectly. It can cover complex test cases in this case. Applications where object mapping fails. screen/window coordinates suit well, but with some limitations where proper tabs are not getting recognized when clicked and other tabs are clicked based on coordinates recorded.

Atul Patil

Senior Test Engineer in Engineering at HCL Technologies (10,001+ employees)

Vetted Review

2 years of experience

Functional testing using TestComplete

Rating: 8 out of 10

Incentivized

December 11, 2021

Use Cases and Deployment Scope

We are in the Insurance and Travel business. Lots of our web applications are re-developed and re-designed. We decided to evaluate the test automation tools to align with our applications. Most applications are web platforms and Mobile. The whole idea was to use the tools to perform SmokeTest and Functional testing whenever we needed.

Pros

Smoke Test
Functional Test
Unit Test
Azure DevOps integration

Cons

Test Suite runs - Running test Suite (improvements)
Name Mapping issue
Scripting

Likelihood to Recommend

Easy to Record and Playback

Verified User

Analyst in Quality Assurance (51-200 employees)

Vetted Review

4 years of experience

Loading Reviews List....

Test automation of WPF-based application with TestComplete

Rating: 8 out of 10

Incentivized

January 20, 2022

Use Cases and Deployment Scope

Pros

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

Cons

The documentation is lackluster in many areas and especially for scripting, script extensions, and plugins, there's a lot of copy/paste. Trying to grasp a specific aspect is often impossible in these areas and it feels like one would really have to read the documentation from start to finish to not get lost. For example, the documentation for simply expanding a keyword test with a form, so the tester can specify parameters there, is completely overblown and takes a while to be reduced to the important bits.
The Name Mapping can be unstable when editing/renaming/moving objects and can lead to occasional crashes
TestComplete is not fully dpi aware and can have difficulties when operating multiple screens with different resolutions, which can lead to "click" events not hitting the actual button, and the application itself can often be way too large or small when it sized itself based on a screen it is not located on.
Mapping/interacting with objects is only possible when TestComplete can still find them after locating them. Therefore, when windows don't stay open after losing focus (by switching to TestComplete) this can be problematic, especially when trying to access elements that can not be pinpointed (either when they are not visible, have no visible representation, to begin with, or are situated below another object that blocks it)

Likelihood to Recommend

Verified User

Employee in Quality Assurance (51-200 employees)

Vetted Review

1 year of experience