We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output."
"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"The product has many features."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"The ease-of-use and quality of the overall product are above average."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
"One drawback to Selenium is that there is nothing like an object repository, such as that found in QTP, especially considering continuous integration practices that have become common nowadays."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"Sometimes we face challenges with Selenium HQ. There are third party tools that we use, for example for reading the images, that are not easy to plug in. The third party add-ons are difficult to get good configuration and do not have good support. I would like to see better integration with other products."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"Selenium HQ can improve by creating an enterprise version where it can provide the infrastructure for running the tests. Currently, we need to run the test in our infrastructure because it's a free tool. If Google can start an enterprise subscription and they can provide us with the infrastructure, such as Google Cloud infrastructure where we can configure it, and we can run the test there, it would be highly beneficial."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"Headless testing would be a big improvement."
"TestComplete gives support to do requests to a SOAP web service but has no support to do HTTP requests on Restful services."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses."
"The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS."
"Error handling features in the tool are a little limited."
"The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
"At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has reduced the challenges to some extent, as we can now utilize OCR if the normal method doesn't work. Nevertheless, there is still significant potential for improvement in TestComplete's ability to identify various object elements. I don't have any specific concerns to mention. I have observed significant improvements in TestComplete over the past few years, especially in its support for highly dynamic object elements used in products like Salesforce Dynamics 365. In earlier versions, there were numerous challenges, but the current version is far superior to its predecessors."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 71 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and IBM Rational Functional Tester, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and Visual Studio Test Professional. See our Selenium HQ vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
