TrustRadius
Great muti-platform solution for reducing manual test time.
https://www.trustradius.com/functional-testingTestCompleteUnspecified8.490101
Jessica Strock profile photo
August 21, 2017

Great muti-platform solution for reducing manual test time.

Score 9 out of 101
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source

Overall Satisfaction with TestComplete

Our teams use TestComplete to automate regression tests of our web-based products. Currently, the QA teams are the only teams using TestComplete. Having automated test suites helps reduce the test cycle time, by running regression test on standard features and UI elements. Some products are automated before release while others are automated after release.
  • The record and play back works great for our less technical team members. Basic UI validations and some of the happy path functionality can easily be automated.
  • The structure and set up of Project Suites. Easy to organize tests and group into functional tests that can be reused in Test cases.
  • Multiple Types of tests projects can be created. Mobile, Web Page and Web Services. When setting up a new project the wizard guides the user through and allows for the selection of many different options as well as the coding language that is preferred.
  • With some of the applications our company develops it is hard to re-use tests on multiple browsers. There is usually some items that need to be "tweaked" in order for it to run properly on multiple browsers.
  • When adding Environments to the list in Environment Manager the values are not always retained. I try to add a Windows 7 - 64bit with IE 11 and it defaults the values back to Windows 10 or Chrome 50 when I select the alternate values.
  • Our company uses JIRA for defect tracking and TestComplete does not have the option in Issue Tracking to connect to JIRA.
  • With some projects we have 80-85% automated test coverage. This decreased our manual test time significantly. Typical tester count for a project of that size would be double what we currently have working on the project if not for the extensive automated suite.
  • Having a smoke test that is executed automatically after every deployment to the QA environment has decreased the turn around time for QA. This high level automated test will flag any deployment issues with environment or configuration. That way the development team does not need to wait on the QA team to start testing and identify issues with the deployment. Results are provided as soon as the deployment is complete and if issues are present then development can start working on the fix immediately without having to engage QA.
  • The initial training time for testers has been balanced out once the automated scripts are in place. The upkeep on the scripts does take time and on some projects we have found that a full time automation resource is required to keep up with the changes being made.
The challenge was the amount of manual testing that needed to be conducted for regression tests. This was resource heavy on the number of testers and the amount of time it took to complete a full regression on some projects. TestComplete helped to reduce the manual test time. This allowed testers to focus on functional testing and be more thorough on the new features and functionality.
Our test efforts have mainly used TestComplete for our web based testing. It was easy to implement for our less technical testers with the record and play. Right off the shelf we were able to automate UI and basic happy path tests. With more in depth usage we were able to create data sets to exercise the many different scenarios that users could encounter with our products. The ability to choose the coding language on project set up is very helpful to allow each tester to choose what is their preferred language, making it easy for the testers to maintain.
The obvious of decreasing testing time. Having many of the manual tasks automated the testers can kick off the scripts and while that is running start on functional feature tests. Also the ability to have a smoke test kick off after a build is deployed has decreased the QA involvement. Helping to identify issues with the build before QA spends time testing and then has to return to development for build related issues.
One other product I reviewed was Zephyr. TestComplete had more modules that could be used for desktop, web and mobile testing. The main reason I considered Zephyr is because of the JIRA compatibility that TestComplete does not have. We went with TestComplete over Zephyr for the features TestComplete offers. Having the issue tracker compatibility was not as important as having the multiple modules and cross browser testing capabilities.
There are a lot of great features that can be used to automate test cases. It is simple enough to use for the less technical testers and has enough features for our engineer testers. Having the flexibility of coding language and the multiple modules for web, desktop and mobile apps is great. The price point is at the top end and is hard to maintain enough licenses for a large team with all the individual modules need for a complete solution.