We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and SmartBear TestLeft based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"The most valuable features are test executor and development."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"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."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved."
Earn 20 points
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while SmartBear TestLeft is ranked 33rd in Functional Testing Tools. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestLeft is rated 7.0. 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 TestLeft writes "Simple to set up and the test execute feature is helpful, but the cost could be reduced". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test, whereas SmartBear TestLeft is most compared with SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis Tosca.
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.