We performed a comparison between ReadyAPI and Selenium HQ 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."The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are its robust functionality and collaboration capabilities."
"Reporting is more robust than other products because test reports can be exported in multiple ways."
"The most valuable feature is being able to run each version for test suites."
"It's easy to learn how to use it."
"It can create stress tests very fast, and some features help you do it fast."
"It has the ability to combine it with different CI/CD tools."
"It's easy to implement."
"When we are doing API testing we have found it to be very efficient to receive results. Additionally, you are able to do tests directly from the API."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"Data parametrization and parallelization are the most important features in any automation tool."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"To generate a test suite in API, I had to create a separate one each time because otherwise it was just override the test. Each API had to be added separately. I thought I could just have one and then create different methods, but I had to add each API separately to create the test for that. That is an area that could be improved."
"There is a lot of room for improvement, mainly from the point of view of integrating ReadyAPI into the CI pipelines, and also the scripting aspect into Bitbucket."
"The solution is made up of multiple tools, and the one additional feature we'd like to have is load testing."
"ReadyAPI could improve by having dynamic validation information."
"Sometimes, if I changed something in ReadyAPI, it would not quickly pick up the change. It used to give me the same error repeatedly, and when I closed the application completely and restarted it, it would pick up that change."
"Can be improved by including an inherent feature for UI automation."
"Performance and memory management both need to be improved because other solutions use less memory for the same amount of data."
"The content on ReadyAPI in SmartBear Academy is outdated."
"Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. ReadyAPI is rated 7.8, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, ReadyAPI Test and BlazeMeter, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA). See our ReadyAPI vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Functional 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.