We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Regression Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"It is very stable."
"It is a good automation tool."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"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."
"What I like about Selenium HQ is that we wrote it ourselves. I think it's perfect. It's a framework that you can use to devise your own products, which is nice."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows."
"The product has many features."
"The most valuable features of the SmartBear TestComplete are self-healing, they reduce the maintenance required. The different languages SmartBear TestComplete supports are good because some of our libraries are written in Python, JavaScript, and C#. It's very easy to put them all under one project and use them. The are other features that SmartBear TestComplete has but the competition widely has them as well."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"It is very easy to maintain tests with this tool. It covers all necessary items in the test plan. The most painful item in testing is maintenance. When changes occur, the tests should be maintained."
"This company offers end-to-end capabilities for test suite creation and execution. One feature that I particularly appreciate is the tagging system. Tags are highly valuable, as they allow you to assign tags to your test cases. When there's an impact in a specific area, you can search for and run all test cases associated with that tag. I find this functionality very useful."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"Right now, when you buy the solution, you need to pay for one solution. You receive one set up and you install it and it's just in that one machine. It would be ideal if they could offer one subscription where you can connect to different machines with a group subscription."
"Error handling features in the tool are a little limited."
"We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses."
"I didn't use it very heavily. One issue that I found was that there wasn't a quick way or a button to move Visual Basic scripts to TestComplete. We have a lot of such scripts in our organization, and it would be very useful to have some option to easily move these scripts. It is currently possible to convert these scripts to TestComplete, but it is not easy. I have to write some code, but everything is not available immediately."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"TestComplete gives support to do requests to a SOAP web service but has no support to do HTTP requests on Restful services."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"The pricing is the constraint."
Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Regression Testing Tools with 102 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 6th in Regression Testing Tools with 71 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and IBM Rational Functional Tester, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and Visual Studio Test Professional. See our Selenium HQ vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Regression Testing Tools vendors and best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Regression 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.