LoadNinja vs. TestComplete

TestComplete

Overview
Product	Rating	Most Used By	Product Summary	Starting Price
LoadNinja	Score 4.0 out of 10	N/A	LoadNinja is a cloud-based performance testing platform for engineers and performance professionals to load test web application with real browsers at scale using test scripts that can be replayed immediately after recording. LoadNinja is designed to produce actionable browser based performance data to isolate issues and debug errors in real time.	$105 per month billed annually
TestComplete	Score 7.9 out of 10	N/A	TestComplete is a GUI test automation tool that enables users of all skill levels to test the UI of every desktop, web, and mobile application. TestComplete is best suited for testers, automation engineers, and QA teams in any industry.	$2,256 per license

Pricing

LoadNinja

TestComplete

Editions & Modules

Subscription: $105
per month billed annually
On-Demand: $301
per month
Enterprise: Contact

Node-Locked Base: 2,256
per license
Node-Locked Pro: 3,950
per license
Float - Base: 5,077
per license
Float - Pro: 7,901
per license

Offerings

Pricing Offerings
LoadNinja	TestComplete
Free Trial
No	Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No	No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No	No

Entry-level Setup Fee

No setup fee

Additional Details

—

Pay for only the modules needed. TestComplete Pro includes all three modules: desktop, web, and mobile, at a bundled price point, as well as access to the parallel testing engine, TestExecute. TestComplete has additional add-ons, including TestExecute and the Intelligent Quality Add-On.

More Pricing Information

Community Pulse
	LoadNinja	TestComplete

Best Alternatives
	LoadNinja	TestComplete
Small Businesses	GitLab Score 8.7 out of 10	BrowserStack Score 8.6 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies	GitLab Score 8.7 out of 10	ReadyAPI Score 7.0 out of 10
Enterprises	GitLab Score 8.7 out of 10	ReadyAPI Score 7.0 out of 10
All Alternatives	View all alternatives	View all alternatives

User Ratings
	LoadNinja	TestComplete
Likelihood to Recommend	- (0 ratings)	7.0 (88 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew	- (0 ratings)	8.1 (6 ratings)
Usability	- (0 ratings)	7.8 (7 ratings)
Support Rating	- (0 ratings)	6.6 (7 ratings)
Implementation Rating	- (0 ratings)	6.7 (4 ratings)

User Testimonials
	LoadNinja	TestComplete
Likelihood to Recommend	SmartBear No answers on this topic	SmartBear 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 Anonymous Read full review
Pros	SmartBear No answers on this topic	SmartBear 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 Verified User Anonymous Read full review
Cons	SmartBear No answers on this topic	SmartBear 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 Ben Fishel-Brown Test Automation & Security Team Lead Read full review
Likelihood to Renew	SmartBear No answers on this topic	SmartBear 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 Verified User Anonymous Read full review
Usability	SmartBear No answers on this topic	SmartBear 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 Verified User Anonymous Read full review
Support Rating	SmartBear No answers on this topic	SmartBear Some bugs were quickly resolved, but most UX quirks of the tool are just marked "as designed". No follow up for enhancement request. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review
Implementation Rating	SmartBear No answers on this topic	SmartBear 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 Yury Vakhatov Test Automation Engineer Read full review
Alternatives Considered	SmartBear No answers on this topic	SmartBear 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 Verified User Anonymous Read full review
Return on Investment	SmartBear No answers on this topic	SmartBear 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 Verified User Anonymous Read full review
ScreenShots	LoadNinja Screenshots