Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Selenium HQ vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
4th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
110
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
7th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
75
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Selenium HQ is 4.4%, down from 5.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 4.8%, down from 5.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Abhishek-Tiwari - PeerSpot reviewer
An open-source solution that has significantly reduced costs for the company
One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing. For example, if there is a webpage where we need to upload some documents or emails in the webpage and I want to automate that scenario with the help of Selenium, it will not be possible. I can not upload any documents because when I am clicking on the browser the Windows pop up will appear. It would be beneficial if Selenium HQ would develop integrated plugins, and inbuilt features, which would help us to automate Windows based applications. With the help of other third party plugins, like AutoIt, Robot Class, or Sikuli we can integrate Windows based applications. Another limitation of Selenium HQ is that we can not automate the capture part. EML processing is not available in Selenium, particularly if a website requires some capture kind of validations before logging into the application. To overcome this situation, we can disable the capture part from the application side, so we can get access to the database directly.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"There is a supportive community around it."
"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."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"The stability and performance are good."
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"It is very stable."
"The integration with various tools is important."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
 

Cons

"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."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"The most significant issue with Selenium is its difficulty in adapting to changing locators, which can hinder testing."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"There is a challenge with concurrent testing, where parallelization is not fully supported."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
"​To simplify the development process, everyone needs to do a Selenium Framework to acquire the web application functions and features from Selenium methods."
"One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git."
"Product is not stable enough and it crashes often."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"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."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"Right now, when you buy the solution, you need to pay for one solution. You receive one set up and you install it and it's just in that one machine. It would be ideal if they could offer one subscription where you can connect to different machines with a group subscription."
"The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Selenium is a free tool."
"It is free to use."
"The pricing is open source."
"We are satisfied with the pricing."
"It is free."
"There is no pricing cost. License is Apache License 2.0."
"This is an open-source product that can be used free of charge."
"This product is open source and free. That was a huge deciding factor for us getting into it."
"We have a TestComplete 12 license."
"The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
"Overall, for us, the cost of the TestComplete platform and the three extra modules is around $8,000."
"The price of SmartBear TestComplete could be less. The main challenge is when it comes to node-locked. They should use a subscription model, such as a monthly-based subscription or, a quarterly-based subscription. Their floating license is very expensive, and this high price should be reduced or provide, at a minimum, a subscription model."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"The option we chose was around $2,000 USD."
"My advice so far, is that while it’s not quite as powerful and easy to use as UFT, its price tag more than makes up for it."
"The solution's pricing is too high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
Selenium is easy to install and mostly free, so there's no need for a license. This lack of costs makes it an attractive option.
What do you like most about SmartBear TestComplete?
TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I don't know much about the pricing, however, I think it's cheaper.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing.
 

Also Known As

SeleniumHQ
No data available
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about Selenium HQ vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.