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.
"The tool is easy to use and log in with respect to other tools. It is open-source. We can customize the product. I also like its security."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"I believe Selenium HQ to be the best solution in the market for automating web applications"
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"It is a good automation tool."
"The stability and performance are good."
"The Model-Based Test Automation is the most valuable feature, where you can create reusable components. Even though we are using a scriptless automation tool, there still needs to be an understanding of how to create reusable components and how to keep refactoring and how to keep regression, the test scripts, at an okay level. We are coupling Tosca with some other risk-based testing tools, as well, but automation is primarily what we're using Tosca for, the scriptless, model-based technology which is driving automation for us."
"The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are the ease of use, you do not need to program if you do not want to."
"It is easy to maintain and easy to automate. No coding skills are required to automate. It is also easy in terms of transferring knowledge and skills. Many of my team members shifted over the past one and a half years, and there was no big issue with respect to knowledge sharing. It is a good tool that enables me to re-automate my scripts and update my scripts as quickly as possible. Looking at the amount of rework and maintenance activity that we had done for our scripts, it might have been a nightmare with some other scripting tool."
"I face no challenges or stability issues."
"Object Identification Wizard."
"What I find valuable is that Tricentis is always refining the test methodology. They listen to feedback from the analysts about what the testing tool should do, and then Tricentis always implements it. So all the necessary testing functions are already implemented in their tools."
"The product enables codeless automation."
"The most important feature is its ability to support the technical automation of specific clients that we cannot use with other tools."
"If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting."
"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%."
"When we upgrade the version, some features are missing. I want the product to include some AI capabilities."
"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."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"I would like to be able to manage different projects in one repository or have better data exchange between repositories."
"The solution is expensive."
"Setup wasn't that straightforward; it was more complex. It all depends on the environment, because there were a lot of errors on our applications. Therefore, it wasn't an easy setup for us."
"More and more artificial intelligence (AI) is coming in. So, some amount of AI to create natural language processing (NLP)-based test cases and manage defects would be very helpful. This is because the technologies have evolved in the last five to six months, so there is a potential opportunity there."
"Tricentis Tosca’s technical support could be improved."
"The integration with mobile testing could be useful."
"Making it more stable would be good because we get around 90% stability."
"The UI does not have the option of automating the scroll bars."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 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, Automation Anywhere (AA) and OpenText Silk Test, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and UiPath Test Suite. 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.