We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Tricentis Tosca based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: After comparing all parameters, Selenium HQ seems to be the more popular choice, since it is open-source and has very good documentation and community-based support available.
"It is a scalable solution."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are the Salesforce scanning. There are two scanning for Salesforce applications. There is Salesforce scanning and normal application scanning. Object identification has been really useful in Tricentis Tosca."
"I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have enterprise-level customers."
"We have multiple applications, and it supports parallel execution. It has mobile automation."
"With one click, it will scan all the elements on the screen, so that the user can select the required elements for automation tests."
"This solution is very easy to learn and any non-programmer or manual tester, with little experience in automation, can pick it up quite easily."
"The most valuable feature is being able to create a test case by recording some scenarios and then leasing that task case to other scenarios."
"The product enables codeless automation."
"The solution is script-less, so you don't need IT knowledge to use the solution in an operational way. This is the most valuable feature. It's also only one of two or three tools that can do good automation on SAP, and in my opinion, it's the best of those."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
"Sometimes we face challenges with Selenium HQ. There are third party tools that we use, for example for reading the images, that are not easy to plug in. The third party add-ons are difficult to get good configuration and do not have good support. I would like to see better integration with other products."
"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."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
"It would be awesome if there was a standalone implementation of Selenium for non-developer users."
"One thing to improve in Tricentis Tosca is that it's not compatible with Excel based forms. Another area for improvement is that the tool is not compatible with OpenText applications. The support and licensing cost for it also need improvement. The tool also needs cloud support, as it's currently on-premises only."
"Not being able to mask test data in relation to testing data management, in my opinion, is also a limitation."
"Running the regression – if multiple lists are executed at once or if a list contains 200+ tests, it’s a pain to stop the execution."
"Very difficult to get information about licensing costs."
"The product is not very stable when used with cloud storage. It is very hard to load the screen, making it difficult to use the tool in cloud storage."
"Tricentis Tosca's performance could be better. Sometimes when we are remapping or when it is loading it can take a lot of time. There are free solutions that have better performance in this area."
"The tool lags in client-based applications. We have also encountered issues with the features in integrations."
"In Tosca, I see that there are no user guides."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. 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 Tricentis Tosca writes "Does not require coding experience to use and comes with productivity and time-saving features ". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio, OpenText Silk Test and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Tricentis qTest. See our Selenium HQ vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression 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.