We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and SmartBear TestComplete 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."In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"The solution is mainly stable."
"Selenium integration."
"TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."
"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"Test items, project variables helps in managing automation suite and scheduling execution."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"In SmartBear TestComplete the integration with Jenkins could be easier. Additionally, some of the controls could have better customization options. For example, if a grid is used and it contains multiple controls within it, it can be a checkbox, radio button, or any kind of control, the way the Object Spy is operating currently there is a lot of room for improvement."
"To bring it up to a 10, I would be looking for the addition of some key functional API testing."
"The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"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."
"Headless testing would be a big improvement."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional 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 "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". 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 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.