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."It is a scalable solution."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"It is a good automation tool."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"The product has many features."
"Selenium integration."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"It is very easy to maintain tests with this tool. It covers all necessary items in the test plan. The most painful item in testing is maintenance. When changes occur, the tests should be maintained."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"There are some tiny issues with SeleniumHQ. For example, with respect to the scraping tests. Sometimes, a website will have some hidden items or blockages that inhibit us from extracting data directly. It would be beneficial if Selenium could extract that information."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"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."
"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."
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.