We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and SmartBear TestLeft based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"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."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"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."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"The most valuable features are test executor and development."
"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."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"Shadow DOM could be improved and the handling of single page applications. Right now, it's a bit complicated and there are a lot of additional scripts required if you want to handle a single page application in a neat way."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved."
Earn 20 points
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews while SmartBear TestLeft is ranked 33rd in Functional Testing Tools. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestLeft is rated 7.0. 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 SmartBear TestLeft writes "Simple to set up and the test execute feature is helpful, but the cost could be reduced". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas SmartBear TestLeft is most compared with SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis Tosca.
See our list of best Functional 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.