We performed a comparison between SmartBear TestComplete and Testim based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows."
"The solution is mainly stable."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"The most valuable features of the SmartBear TestComplete are self-healing, they reduce the maintenance required. The different languages SmartBear TestComplete supports are good because some of our libraries are written in Python, JavaScript, and C#. It's very easy to put them all under one project and use them. The are other features that SmartBear TestComplete has but the competition widely has them as well."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"The product is easy to use."
"The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools."
"We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 71 reviews while Testim is ranked 17th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6, while Testim is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Testim writes "A stable tool to help users take care of the implementation phases in their environment". SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish, whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Functionize, Testsigma and Perfecto. See our SmartBear TestComplete vs. Testim report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.