We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and SmartBear TestLeft based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."It's easy for new people to get trained on this solution. If we are hiring new people, the resource pool in the market in test automation is largely around Selenium."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"What I like about Selenium HQ is that we wrote it ourselves. I think it's perfect. It's a framework that you can use to devise your own products, which is nice."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"The most valuable features are test executor and development."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved."
Earn 20 points
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while SmartBear TestLeft is ranked 33rd in Functional Testing Tools. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestLeft is rated 7.0. 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 TestLeft writes "Simple to set up and the test execute feature is helpful, but the cost could be reduced". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test, whereas SmartBear TestLeft is most compared with SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis Tosca.
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.