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 Excel sheet feature is good."
"The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test."
"It's easy to automate for more data-driven testing."
"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."
"ReadyAPI's best features are user-friendliness, smooth integration with Postman, the speed of creating test cases, and integration with customer data."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"This solution is very intuitive. Once you finish your first few testing cases, you can change several parameters and create lots of testing cases. You could use the same testing cases for different purposes such as automation, performance and screen testing."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the ready-to-use assertions and filters which can perform the validation. If we want to filter out any value, the filters are available. Apart from that database integration, if you want to go ahead and perform validation in the database layer it is possible with the ready-to-use feature available. The execution and reporting are rich features."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
"You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"The solution is free to use."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"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."
"If ReadyAPI had more integration with all of the big tools on the market then this would be very useful."
"What needs improvement in ReadyAPI is its load testing feature because there was a hiccup when my team performed some load testing on the tool. My team had meetings with the ReadyAPI team and tried to get that issue fixed, but it still hasn't improved. This is a shortcoming of the tool, especially when you compare it with HP LoadRunner."
"ReadyAPI can improve because it is limited to only SOAP and REST services. They should update the solution to include more protocols so that other people are not limited to SOAP and REST services. Other than would be able to utilize it."
"The performance in some cases needs improvement. Sometimes it requires too many resources."
"Many users will consider this solution expensive compared to the layout. It is more expensive than other solutions."
"There is room for improvement in ReadyAPI, particularly in the user interface."
"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."
"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."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"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."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"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."
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.