mabl vs. TestComplete

We haven't found a scenario yet where it hasn't been appropriate. We did have one function on our application that mabl couldn't do, but they solved it and got back to us very quickly. Our application is web-based and mabl is able to handle this very easily. We use the command line runner a lot. Being able to easily and quickly change from a cloud based run to a local run has been fantastic. Setting up flows and environments is a wonderful feature

Incentivized

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

• mabl trainer - record and play back test cases
• Organization - labels and flows make this easy
• Customer support!

Incentivized

• TestComplete is great for working with our non-web applications.
• TestComplete allows us to interface with our web application in a robust way.
• Despite the age of our architecture, TestComplete handles the old stuff that's been around a while as well as the newer technology when we are able to implement it.

Incentivized

• Asserts could be easier to add, but they aren't terribly hard

Incentivized

• Would love to see TC be a plugin for Visual Studio. Instead of VBScript or JavaScript, to use C# or VB.NET
• Easier to set up with iOS. Android is not bad but iOS seems slow and confusing to get up and running
• Built-in PDF reading support, built in Excel API

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

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

We ultimately selected mabl cause it most met our needs and our budget. We needed a low code UI automation test tool. We also have a suite of existing testing tools and other tools that it needed to be able to integrate with. Price was the only thing that ruled out some of the above tools, we are a small start up, and don't have a huge budget. Some tools listed didn't have the same functionality or ease of use with the record and playback. mabl works on our machines and integrates with our existing tools

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

• We are able to more quickly automate UI tests

Incentivized

• Improved product quality overall, since automating tedious tests frees up time and is not prone to fatigue
• When getting started - depending on the complexity of the software/UI tested - it can be a time sink before it brings actual value, and changes to the structure of the UI need to be communicated early, so the changes can be implemented on time to run the automation
• Once set up, the maintenance cost is low, and the automation frees up a lot of resources especially in an agile environment where there are a lot of releases that would need regression tests.

Incentivized