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 most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"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."
"I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support."
"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."
"The initial setup isn't too difficult."
"The scalability is a valuable feature of Tricentis Tosca."
"The automation engine is very strong, and it is very competitive in the market in terms of features. They develop a lot of features."
"The most valuable feature of Tricentis Tosca is it is a completely scriptless automation tool, which I liked a lot. They keep on continuously improving their tools, wherever we are facing any challenges they are able to provide a solution for it. It is easy to learn, everyone can easily read and understand what is happening with the scripts. Any business user or function tester can use the tool efficiently. This is a complete solution package."
"The low code is the best feature."
"The solution has plenty of features compared to other solutions."
"The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are the Salesforce scanning. There are two scanning for Salesforce applications. There is Salesforce scanning and normal application scanning. Object identification has been really useful in Tricentis Tosca."
"You can quickly build automated testing, manage it, and have it run on a regular basis to ensure that there are no issues."
"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."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"I would like to see some reporting or test management tools."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"The login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ"
"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."
"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."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
"Many times when we have raised a ticket, we did not get an urgent response."
"Making it more stable would be good because we get around 90% stability."
"I would like a better user interface."
"Tosca's reporting features could be better. Tricentis had a reporting tool called Analytics, but it didn't function properly after they reworked it. After that, they tried a new approach with key-tracing, and that didn't work."
"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."
"What needs to be improved in Tricentis Tosca is its centralized repository mechanism because it's not as flexible. The repository in the solution where you store the data and the script for test automation is quite an old-fashioned mechanism that could be improved."
"Primarily I'm dealing with customers looking for a cheap solution, and they are willing to try open-source automation solutions. So from this perspective, the price of Tosca is not as competitive."
"In Tosca, I see that there are no user guides."
Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Regression Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Regression Testing Tools with 96 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. 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 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, OpenText Silk Test and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Tricentis qTest. See our Selenium HQ vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Regression Testing Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression 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.