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 the scripting tools and the connectivity to external data sources, such as Excel and PDF files. There are plenty of useful features that are useful, such as automating flexibility and usability. Overall, the solution is easy to use."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The performance testing capabilities are very good."
"ReadyAPI's best features are that it's user-friendly and its behavior-driven development is flexible."
"One of the features of ReadyAPI that's worth mentioning is that it allows you to parameterize. I'm working with more than two hundred resources, so I don't have to go and make a small change at each point every time. I have the option to just parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere. Another valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it provides a customized environment. In my company, you work in different environments, such as QA, UAT, and LT, so the URLs for every environment are different. In ReadyAPI, you can customize your environment, set it up, then start working on it. Another feature worth mentioning that's offered in ReadyAPI is automating your test value as the tool allows Groovy scripting. In your test case, you can use a Groovy script that says that in a particular test case, you have ten resources, but you just want to exhibit five and that you don't want to exhibit the remaining five. You can write a small Groovy script that lets you execute just five resources out of the ten resources. I also like that ReadyAPI allows you to read the data from CFC and Excel. It also allows you to create or customize your data, but that only works at a certain point because every application has its specific data. ReadyAPI cannot generate every data, but when I'm posting and I want to generate a random name, such as a first name, I can do it in ReadyAPI. The tool also has many different features which I find valuable, including Git integration."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the drag-and-drop options and the integration with versioning tool solutions, such as Git."
"The initial setup of ReadyAPI is straightforward."
"It's great for those that don't have as much exposure to programming."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"The solution is free to use."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output."
"In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"The stability and performance are good."
"The overall scope of this solution is limited and could be improved."
"I would like to see a better dashboard for monitoring in the next release of this solution."
"Better compatibility or more support for the older versions would be helpful."
"Areas for improvement include the security files, endpoints, and process sessions."
"Version control does not work well."
"I don't like how they don't have a clear way to manage tests between multiple projects."
"The Property Transfer capability could be more user friendly because it is a bit difficult to understand."
"The UI should be flexible. Currently, the UI isn't."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
ReadyAPI is ranked 6th 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.