We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Zeenyx AscentialTest 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."What I like the most about this product is that it gives us a lot of freedom to code anything, there is no restriction on the type of function you can do."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"My customer previously validated every file and it would take almost 15-20 minutes for a document. They used to randomly select and test only 100 out of the thousands, maybe 85,000, files, to pick up sampling. Each file would take around 20 to 25 minutes, so we were not able to do it manually, but with the help of Selenium, we were able to test all the files in two days. It saves a lot of time."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"If you use the PowerBuilder application, do choose AscentialTest without thinking twice."
"It’s been really easy to automate the same application TestComplete struggled with. I have been able to automate two of our key applications in just a few months. I haven’t even taken their training."
"The most valuable feature of AscentialTest for us is that it fully supports PowerBuilder."
"AscentialTest's object recognition in snapshots is a robust feature that goes beyond standard elements, even accurately identifying objects within Datawindows."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"The latest versions are often unstable."
"Selenium HQ doesn't support Windows-based applications, so we need to integrate with the third-party vendor. It would be great if Selenium could include Windows-based automation. You need to integrate it with a third-party tool if you want to upload any files. When we interact with a Windows application, we usually use Tosca."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"Classes are not as object-oriented as I would like, but I am a programmer and not QA so I expect a lot."
"The only thing I can't wait for is for Zeenyx to add automating Mobile apps."
"Streamlining the retrieval of results from individual test set runs would be beneficial."
"I would like to see an improvement in the User Interface."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews while Zeenyx AscentialTest is ranked 19th in Functional Testing Tools with 13 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Zeenyx AscentialTest is rated 9.4. 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 Zeenyx AscentialTest writes "Robust automation with reusable steps and seamless integration". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Zeenyx AscentialTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca and SmartBear TestComplete. See our Selenium HQ vs. Zeenyx AscentialTest report.
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.