Leapwork vs TestComplete

Leapwork vs TestComplete

5 February 2024 Stephan Petzl Leave a comment Tool comparisons

In the landscape of test automation tools, Leapwork and TestComplete have been noteworthy contenders. Leapwork offers a no-code, AI-enhanced platform that’s highly accessible for non-technical users, focusing on web and mobile applications with robust support and integration features.

Conversely, TestComplete was a script-based and scriptless tool, known for its AI-powered object recognition and comprehensive device farm, until its discontinuation in mid-2023. This comparison will dissect their core functionalities, ease of use, and industry applications to help you understand which tool best suited different testing needs before TestComplete was phased out.

Latest update: 1/9/2024, 5:35:10 PM
We do not guarantee the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information presented on our website. This includes prices, product specifications, and availability, which are subject to change. The reviews on this site are collected from g2.com and crozdesk.com and summarized by us.

Feature comparison of Leapwork and TestComplete

Free Plan
On PremiseN/A
Device Farm
No Code
Uses Ai
Generates Reports
Uses Computer VisionN/A
Ease Of Usevery easy to learneasy to learn
Is Open Source
Support Included
Review Pros – Comprehensive data storage abilities without being locked into a single solution.
– Excellent support with timely solutions upon request.
– Ease of use in creating subflows for reusable tasks, which benefits non-technical testers.
– Enables manual testers to create automation without extensive coding knowledge.
– GUI-based platform that is easy to learn with a supportive knowledge base.
– No technical prerequisites required for use.
– In-depth strategy editor that supports web, desktop, and API automation.
– Seamless integration of test cases involving both desktop and web applications.
– Video export feature of executed test cases for documentation and training.
– Excellent debugging functionality, including live video execution and video recording.
Review Cons – Minor user interface issues, such as watermarks not disappearing when typing.
– Lack of check-in control in the Platform version compared to the Enterprise version.
– Reporting features could be enhanced, such as email reports and dashboard improvements.
– Identifying some web elements can be counterintuitive and may require advanced knowledge.
– Mobile automation not built-in; reliance on third-party providers or tools is necessary.
– Test execution can be slow when using remote agents.
– Limited functionality for executing sub-flows compared to main flows.
– Data-driven test automation from Excel is not dynamic and could be improved.
– Limited Excel integration with only basic Read and Write blocks available.
– Still an on-premises tool; could benefit from being cloud-based with automated backups and disaster recovery.

Pricing Overview: Leapwork Test Automation

Leapwork Test Automation presents a customizable pricing model that caters to the different demands and sizes of various businesses and teams. Instead of offering set price tiers, Leapwork opts for a more personalized approach, asking interested customers to contact them directly. This interaction allows Leapwork to tailor a quote that specifically addresses the unique needs of each organization, factoring in their business goals and the composition of their team.

Comparison of Pricing Models

Unfortunately, the pricing information for TestComplete is not available, which limits our ability to perform a direct comparison between Leapwork and TestComplete. However, we can extract some valuable insights into Leapwork’s pricing strategy and how it might differ from traditional pricing models that are commonly seen in the software market.

Customization vs. Standardization

Leapwork’s emphasis on customization in pricing is a significant departure from the standard tier-based pricing models that many software providers use. Typically, tiered pricing involves several pre-defined plans, each with a set of features that cater to different user segments, from individual freelancers to large enterprises.

Common Points:

  • Both Leapwork and TestComplete are software tools designed for test automation, which implies that they likely share a target audience that includes QA engineers, development teams, and organizations looking to streamline their testing processes.
  • It is common for such tools to offer varying levels of access, support, and features based on the pricing plan chosen, although this detail is specific to Leapwork due to the lack of information on TestComplete.

Key Differences:

  • Personalization: Leapwork’s approach allows for a more nuanced and flexible pricing structure, which can adapt to the specific requirements of each team or business.
  • Transparency: In contrast to Leapwork’s opaque pricing until contact is made, many software tools, possibly including TestComplete, provide upfront pricing information. This transparency can be beneficial for potential customers looking to make quick comparisons and decisions.
  • Scalability: With Leapwork, scalability in pricing is likely negotiated during the quote process, ensuring that the solution grows with the company’s needs. In contrast, tier-based models often have set scalability paths, with each tier offering more features, support, and user seats.

Final Thoughts

Without the pricing details of TestComplete, we can only speculate on how it might stack up against Leapwork’s personalized pricing strategy. However, Leapwork’s approach indicates a commitment to aligning their pricing with the specific value they provide to each customer. This can be particularly advantageous for companies with unique workflows or those who require a more consultative relationship with their software providers.

For readers interested in Leapwork, the key takeaway is that they should be prepared to engage in a dialogue to obtain a pricing plan that is crafted to fit their exact needs. This could be a significant benefit for those who find that standard pricing models do not adequately reflect their usage patterns or business objectives.

Like this article? there’s more where that came from!