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."Selenium web driver - Java."
"It is a good automation tool."
"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."
"Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"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."
"In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"The ease-of-use and quality of the overall product are above average."
"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."
"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."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"The login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ"
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
"The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"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 integration tools could be better."
"To bring it up to a 10, I would be looking for the addition of some key functional API testing."
"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."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"TestComplete gives support to do requests to a SOAP web service but has no support to do HTTP requests on Restful services."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"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 solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
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.