Micro Focus Business Process Testing (discontinued) vs. TestComplete

You may want to consider this solution if you are already using HP ALM and HP UFT. It's a nice add on and encourages the team to think more on building small component based tests and promote lot of reuse. Also, if your team want business analysts or any non technical people build tests based on the flows, its probably the best solution available now. On the down side, the execution times if you have too many components are not great and on top of that you have to pay extra for the licensing. You can also build such frameworks using more open source solutions like bdd solutions.

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

• Biggest advantage is - you can use the same components created for manual as well as automated testing
• It has a nice little feature called extended capabilities where you can easily automate tests SAP and oracle type architectures.
• Easy access library lets you create highly reusable and shareable components and the integrations is not that difficult

Incentivized

• 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

• If you are using components for automation testing, the time it takes to load a new component is too high and it sucks off the benefit of component based testing.
• You want to have many components in a test and so a BA can also create automated tests easily but too many components takes too long to executed .
• It comes with a cost. You can simply build a modular framework even without this framework and probably more efficiently.

Incentivized

• 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

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

The idea for building a component based modular test framework is great and it would be great add-on to HP tools if the add-on efficiency is made high and the cost is low.

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

• As the tool itself promotes re usability, we were able to cut down development and maintenance costs by good %.
• More than cost savings, out no technical folks started building automated tests based on user flows very easily.

Incentivized

• 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