Top 50 Alternatives to TestComplete for JavaScript/Python/VBScript/DelphiScript Testing

Introduction and Context

TestComplete, created by SmartBear, is a long-standing functional test automation tool built to cover desktop, web, and mobile applications. It became popular by combining codeless recording with support for multiple scripting languages—JavaScript, Python, VBScript, and DelphiScript—so both non-programmers and engineers could contribute to test suites. Over time, its object recognition engine, keyword-driven testing, data-driven capabilities, and integration with CI/CD systems made it a staple in enterprise QA teams.

Why did TestComplete gain wide adoption? It bridged the gap between record-and-playback convenience and power-user scripting, spanning multiple platforms with a single toolset. Its extensibility, support for distributed execution, and commercial support also appealed to teams that needed reliability and enterprise features.

However, the testing landscape keeps evolving. Teams are moving toward open source, cloud-first execution, and specialized frameworks for web, mobile, API, performance, security, and accessibility. As a result, many QA and development teams are re-evaluating their stacks to find tools that better fit modern architectures, budgets, skills, and workflows.

This article explores 50 notable alternatives and complements to TestComplete—especially for teams working in JavaScript, Python, VBScript, and DelphiScript—so you can make an informed choice.

Overview: The Top 50 Alternatives Covered

Here are the top 50 alternatives for TestComplete:

• Airtest + Poco

• Airtest Project

• Applitools Eyes

• Behave

• Burp Suite (Enterprise)

• Citrus

• Cypress

• Detox

• Espresso

• FitNesse

• Gauge

• IBM Rational Functional Tester

• JMeter

• JUnit

• Jest

• LoadRunner

• Locust

• Mabl

• Mocha

• NeoLoad

• Nightwatch.js

• OWASP ZAP

• PIT (Pitest)

• Playwright

• Postman + Newman

• Protractor (deprecated)

• PyAutoGUI

• Pytest

• Pywinauto

• ReadyAPI

• Repeato

• Rest Assured

• Robot Framework + SeleniumLibrary

• Sahi Pro

• Selene (Yashaka)

• Selenide

• Serenity BDD

• SikuliX

• SoapUI (Open Source)

• Squish

• TestCafe

• TestCafe Studio

• TestNG

• UFT One (formerly QTP)

• UI Automator

• Vitest

• Waldo

• WebdriverIO

• axe-core / axe DevTools

• k6

Why Look for TestComplete Alternatives?

• Cost and licensing: Commercial licensing can be expensive at scale or for distributed teams, prompting interest in open source or lighter-weight commercial tools.

• Language and ecosystem fit: TestComplete supports JavaScript, Python, VBScript, and DelphiScript; teams standardized on TypeScript, Java, or Kotlin may prefer native frameworks and richer ecosystems.

• Maintenance and flakiness: Record-playback tests and large object repositories can become brittle without strict engineering discipline; some tools provide stronger auto-waiting, retries, and resilient locators by default.

• Cloud and speed: Teams increasingly need cloud execution, parallelism, and faster feedback loops; some web-first tools offer smoother parallel runs and traceability out of the box.

• Specialized testing: API-first, microservices, mobile, performance, security, and accessibility needs are often better addressed by specialized tools.

• Dev-friendly workflows: Modern frameworks emphasize developer experience with fixtures, auto-waiting, snapshot/visual diffs, and debugging/tracing that integrate tightly into CI/CD.

Detailed Breakdown of Alternatives

Airtest + Poco

A Python-based UI automation suite from NetEase for Windows, Android, and iOS. It relies on computer vision (CV) and a cross-platform UI automation engine (Poco) to interact with apps.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Airtest + Poco is more CV-centric and particularly useful for mobile and non-standard UIs (e.g., games), whereas TestComplete focuses on object recognition across desktop, web, and mobile with broader enterprise tooling.

Airtest Project

A CV-driven game UI automation toolkit for Android and Windows, also from NetEase, focused on automating games and apps with complex graphics.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Airtest Project excels in game scenarios where TestComplete’s object models may struggle; TestComplete, in turn, offers richer desktop/web integrations and enterprise reporting.

Applitools Eyes

AI-powered visual testing for web, mobile, and desktop with features like Ultrafast Grid to run visual checks at scale.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Applitools is a visual layer that augments existing tests; TestComplete is a full-stack functional automation tool. Many teams use Applitools alongside functional frameworks for comprehensive coverage.

Behave

A BDD framework for Python that uses Gherkin to write human-readable acceptance criteria and tie them to step definitions.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Behave is code-first and BDD-centric, ideal for teams already invested in Python and collaborative specifications, while TestComplete offers codeless options and a visual IDE.

Burp Suite (Enterprise)

A DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing) solution for web and APIs, offering automated security scanning at scale.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Burp Suite Enterprise targets security testing, not functional automation. It’s a complementary addition to a functional toolset like TestComplete.

Citrus

A Java-based framework for integration and message-based testing across HTTP, SOAP, JMS, and more.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Citrus addresses system integration testing where TestComplete focuses on UI-level automation, though both can be part of the same pipeline.

Cypress

A JavaScript/TypeScript end-to-end testing framework for modern web apps. Known for its developer-friendly experience and time-travel debugging.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Cypress is web-only and code-first, optimized for modern front ends. TestComplete spans desktop and mobile in addition to web with codeless workflows.

Detox

A gray-box testing framework for mobile (iOS and Android), especially for React Native apps, that synchronizes with app state.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Detox is purpose-built for mobile apps with a developer-centric approach, while TestComplete provides broader UI automation across platforms and scripting languages.

Espresso

Google’s official UI testing framework for Android, tightly integrated with the Android ecosystem.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Espresso is Android-only and code-first in Java/Kotlin; TestComplete supports multiple platforms and codeless testing but may require more setup for mobile contexts.

FitNesse

A wiki-based acceptance testing tool that supports ATDD via fixtures connecting to your system under test.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: FitNesse emphasizes acceptance tests and documentation; TestComplete focuses on UI automation with IDE-based workflows.

Gauge

An open-source, specification-oriented test tool from ThoughtWorks for web and beyond, with readable specs and multi-language support.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Gauge is code-first and spec-driven; TestComplete blends record/playback and scripting for UI-heavy scenarios.

IBM Rational Functional Tester

A commercial UI automation tool for desktop and web, used widely in legacy enterprise environments.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Both are commercial and cover desktop/web. TestComplete’s scripting in JavaScript/Python may feel more modern; RFT fits organizations already invested in IBM ecosystems.

JMeter

An open-source load testing tool for web, APIs, and various protocols, with a GUI and CLI for scalable execution.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: JMeter focuses on performance/load testing; it complements UI automation rather than replacing it.

JUnit

The de facto unit and integration testing framework for the JVM, foundational for Java CI pipelines.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: JUnit is code-centric and unit/integration focused; TestComplete targets UI automation across platforms. They can coexist in a comprehensive test strategy.

Jest

A popular JavaScript testing framework for unit, component, and lightweight e2e scenarios, widely used in React and Node.js projects.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Jest is primarily for unit/component testing in JS/TS; TestComplete is a UI automation suite for end-to-end across desktop/web/mobile.

LoadRunner

A commercial performance testing suite for web, APIs, and protocols, known for enterprise-grade scalability.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: LoadRunner addresses performance engineering, not functional UI testing. It is a complementary tool in enterprise pipelines.

Locust

An open-source Python-based load testing tool where user behavior is scripted, making scenarios readable and maintainable.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Locust is for performance and load testing; TestComplete is for functional UI tests. They serve different layers of the test pyramid.

Mabl

A commercial, low-code SaaS platform for web and API testing, with self-healing and AI-assisted capabilities.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Both offer low/no-code options. Mabl is SaaS-first with self-healing, while TestComplete is a powerful on-prem/desktop tool with scripting flexibility.

Mocha

A flexible JavaScript test runner for Node.js often combined with assertion and mocking libraries.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Mocha is unit/integration-focused for JS; TestComplete is a UI automation suite. Mocha complements UI tests with backend coverage.

NeoLoad

A commercial performance testing solution covering web, APIs, and protocols, designed for enterprise scalability.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: NeoLoad is performance-focused; TestComplete is functional UI automation. Use them together for robust quality gates.

Nightwatch.js

A JavaScript end-to-end framework using WebDriver protocol, suitable for cross-browser testing.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Nightwatch.js is code-first and web-only. TestComplete adds codeless tests and desktop/mobile coverage.

OWASP ZAP

An open-source DAST tool for web and APIs, aimed at finding security vulnerabilities in CI.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: ZAP is for security scanning. It complements TestComplete’s functional automation rather than replacing it.

PIT (Pitest)

A mutation testing system for the JVM that gauges test suite quality by introducing code mutations.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Pitest addresses test quality for code-level tests; TestComplete is a UI automation platform. They target different layers.

Playwright

A modern end-to-end framework for Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit with auto-waiting, tracing, and multi-language support.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Playwright is code-first and web-focused; TestComplete spans desktop and mobile too. Playwright’s DX and speed make it a top choice for modern web apps.

Postman + Newman

Postman for authoring API collections, Newman for running them in CI/CD from the command line.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Postman is API-focused; TestComplete handles UI as well. Combine them when your stack includes both UI and API layers.

Protractor (deprecated)

An older end-to-end framework for Angular apps now deprecated; not recommended for new projects.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Protractor is deprecated; migration to Playwright, Cypress, or WebdriverIO is advised. TestComplete remains actively maintained for multi-platform UI testing.

PyAutoGUI

A Python library for cross-platform GUI automation that simulates mouse and keyboard interactions.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: PyAutoGUI is lightweight and event-based; TestComplete offers richer object recognition, reporting, and enterprise features.

Pytest

A Python testing framework for unit and functional tests with fixtures and a robust plugin ecosystem.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Pytest is code-centric for Python projects; TestComplete provides codeless and multi-platform UI automation.

Pywinauto

A Python library for automating Windows UI applications using native accessibility APIs.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Pywinauto focuses on Windows desktop; TestComplete covers web and mobile too, with integrated IDE tooling.

ReadyAPI

A commercial API testing suite (from SmartBear) covering REST, SOAP, and GraphQL with advanced features.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Both are SmartBear products; ReadyAPI specializes in API testing while TestComplete targets UI automation. They integrate well together.

Repeato

A commercial, CV-based codeless mobile testing tool for iOS and Android designed to be resilient to UI changes.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Repeato is mobile-first and CV-driven; TestComplete addresses desktop and web alongside mobile with scripting options.

Rest Assured

A Java DSL for testing REST APIs with readable, fluent syntax.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Rest Assured is API-only and code-first; TestComplete is UI-focused with codeless capabilities. Use both for full-stack coverage.

Robot Framework + SeleniumLibrary

A keyword-driven framework with a large ecosystem; SeleniumLibrary adds web UI automation capabilities.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Both support keyword-driven tests. Robot Framework is open source and flexible; TestComplete provides a commercial IDE, record/playback, and multi-platform support.

Sahi Pro

A commercial web and desktop automation tool known for enterprise web app robustness.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Both are commercial with desktop/web coverage. Teams may prefer Sahi Pro’s web locators or TestComplete’s multi-language scripting.

Selene (Yashaka)

A Python wrapper over Selenium inspired by Selenide’s fluent API to simplify web UI tests.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Selene is Python-only and web-focused; TestComplete spans desktop and mobile with codeless and multi-language scripting.

Selenide

A Java library providing a fluent API on top of Selenium with smart waits for stable tests.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Selenide is code-first and web-only; TestComplete offers broader platform coverage and codeless testing.

Serenity BDD

A BDD-oriented automation library with strong reporting and the Screenplay pattern for maintainable tests.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Serenity is code-first and BDD-aligned; TestComplete emphasizes codeless options and a visual IDE, plus desktop/mobile support.

SikuliX

A cross-platform, image-based automation tool using screenshots to drive interactions.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: SikuliX is CV-driven and lightweight; TestComplete provides object recognition, scripting, and enterprise tooling across platforms.

SoapUI (Open Source)

The classic open-source GUI for testing SOAP and REST APIs, often used for quick functional checks.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: SoapUI targets APIs; TestComplete is UI-first. Pair them for UI + API coverage.

Squish

A commercial GUI testing tool for Qt, QML, embedded, desktop, and web UIs, popular in embedded and Qt projects.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Squish shines in Qt and embedded contexts; TestComplete is broader for desktop/web/mobile but less specialized for Qt.

TestCafe

An open-source web testing framework that runs tests without WebDriver, offering reliable cross-browser execution.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: TestCafe is code-first and web-only; TestComplete includes codeless flows and desktop/mobile capabilities.

TestCafe Studio

A commercial, codeless IDE for TestCafe that enables record/playback for web tests.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Both offer codeless web automation, but TestComplete also emphasizes desktop and mobile, plus multi-language scripting.

TestNG

A Java testing framework with flexible annotations, configurations, and parallel execution.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: TestNG is code-centric for Java projects; TestComplete is a UI automation tool with codeless/scripted options across platforms.

UFT One (formerly QTP)

An enterprise functional test tool by OpenText for desktop and web, traditionally scripted in VBScript.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Both are commercial, multi-platform functional tools. Teams may choose based on language preference (VBScript vs. JS/Python) and ecosystem alignment.

UI Automator

An Android testing framework for automating across applications and system UI.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: UI Automator is Android-only and code-first; TestComplete spans more platforms with codeless options.

Vitest

A fast unit/component testing framework built for Vite projects in the JS/TS ecosystem.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Vitest focuses on unit/component testing; TestComplete is for end-to-end UI across platforms.

Waldo

A commercial, codeless mobile testing platform for iOS and Android with a recorder and cloud runs.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: Waldo is mobile-first and codeless; TestComplete covers desktop and web too, with deeper scripting options.

WebdriverIO

A modern JavaScript/TypeScript test framework over WebDriver and DevTools, also integrates with Appium for mobile.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: WebdriverIO is code-first and highly extensible; TestComplete offers a visual IDE and multi-language scripting with desktop support.

axe-core / axe DevTools

Deque’s automated accessibility testing engine and tooling for web.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: axe is focused on accessibility. It complements TestComplete by adding a11y checks alongside functional tests.

k6

An open-source, JavaScript-driven load testing tool with a developer-friendly workflow and a managed cloud option.

• Strengths:

• Compared to TestComplete: k6 is performance/load testing; TestComplete is functional UI automation. They cover different quality dimensions.

Things to Consider Before Choosing a TestComplete Alternative

• Project scope and app types: Are you primarily testing web SPAs, native mobile, desktop, APIs, or embedded UIs? Choose tools best aligned to your platforms.

• Language and team skills: Leverage the languages your team knows (JS/TS, Python, Java, Kotlin) to reduce onboarding friction.

• Setup and maintenance: Consider the upkeep of locators, object repositories, and test data. Tools with auto-waiting, self-healing, or resilient locators can reduce flakiness.

• Execution speed and parallelism: Faster test feedback and parallel runs improve developer productivity. Assess local vs. cloud execution strategies early.

• CI/CD integration: Ensure the tool integrates cleanly with your pipelines, version control, and reporting dashboards.

• Debugging and traceability: Traces, videos, screenshots, and step-by-step logs are critical for diagnosing flaky tests quickly.

• Community and ecosystem: Open-source tools with large communities often have rich plugins and examples; commercial tools provide vendor support and SLAs.

• Scalability and reliability: Evaluate how the tool performs under large test suites, multiple suites in parallel, and long-term maintenance.

• Cost and licensing: Balance commercial licensing with potential productivity gains; consider open-source options to lower entry cost.

• Reporting and governance: Consistent, centralized reporting helps drive quality conversations across teams and stakeholders.

Conclusion

TestComplete remains a powerful and widely used tool for codeless and scripted UI automation across desktop, web, and mobile, especially if your team values JavaScript, Python, VBScript, or DelphiScript in a single environment. That said, the testing ecosystem has diversified. If you need modern web-focused DX, consider Playwright, Cypress, TestCafe, or WebdriverIO. For mobile, options like Espresso, UI Automator, Detox, Repeato, or Waldo may be a better fit. API-heavy teams often choose Rest Assured, Postman + Newman, ReadyAPI, or SoapUI. Performance, security, and accessibility needs are served well by JMeter, k6, Locust, LoadRunner, NeoLoad, OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite (Enterprise), and axe-core.

In practice, most mature teams adopt a layered strategy: use specialized tools for each layer and integrate them into a single pipeline with shared reporting. If cross-browser coverage and device diversity are critical, consider running your chosen framework on a cloud testing grid or device farm to scale faster without maintaining infrastructure. The best alternative—or combination of alternatives—will depend on your application mix, team skills, and the level of reliability and speed your organization demands.