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

Selenium HQ vs SmartBear TestLeft comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
110
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (4th)
SmartBear TestLeft
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
35th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Selenium HQ is 4.3%, down from 5.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestLeft is 0.3%, down from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Anil Kumar Shrestha - PeerSpot reviewer
An open-source solution that integrates with every programming language and library
What I like best about it is that it can automate everything on the front end with the help of other frameworks. The community worldwide provides support for any issues. Plus, it’s open-source, which is a big advantage. The solution integrates with every programming language and library and is very easy to use. It has a simple syntax, and the documentation on the website makes it straightforward to learn and implement.
reviewer1378161 - PeerSpot reviewer
Simple to set up and the test execute feature is helpful, but the cost could be reduced
Our primary use case is Point of Sale (POS) testing The most valuable features are test executor and development. TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved. We have been using SmartBear TestLeft for the past month. Stability-wise, TestLeft is…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"For me, the most valuable feature of Selenium lies in its ability to help us find elements quickly. Apart from that, the driver interface is really useful, too. When we implement the Selenium driver interface, we can easily navigate through all of the pages and sections of an app, including performing things like clicking, putting through SendKeys, scrolling down, tagging, and all the other actions we need to test for in an application."
"The most valuable features are test executor and development."
 

Cons

"One key area for improvement is the documentation."
"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."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"There is a need for an auto-healing feature that can address script failures due to changes in the front end."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Selenium is a free tool."
"Selenium is open-source."
"The solution is open source."
"Currently, Selenium HQ is free for customers."
"The pricing is open source."
"It's open-source, so there's no need to pay for a license."
"We are using Selenium open-source, so there is no need to purchase anything."
"Selenium HQ is a free, open-source solution."
"The cost should be reduced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
29%
Financial Services Firm
23%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Comms Service Provider
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

SeleniumHQ
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
American Red Cross, CISCO, HONDA, ADIDAS, TBC bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, BrowserStack and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: March 2025.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.