We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Zeenyx AscentialTest 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."The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"If you use the PowerBuilder application, do choose AscentialTest without thinking twice."
"AscentialTest's object recognition in snapshots is a robust feature that goes beyond standard elements, even accurately identifying objects within Datawindows."
"The most valuable feature of AscentialTest for us is that it fully supports PowerBuilder."
"It’s been really easy to automate the same application TestComplete struggled with. I have been able to automate two of our key applications in just a few months. I haven’t even taken their training."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"Selenium HQ can improve by creating an enterprise version where it can provide the infrastructure for running the tests. Currently, we need to run the test in our infrastructure because it's a free tool. If Google can start an enterprise subscription and they can provide us with the infrastructure, such as Google Cloud infrastructure where we can configure it, and we can run the test there, it would be highly beneficial."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"Streamlining the retrieval of results from individual test set runs would be beneficial."
"Classes are not as object-oriented as I would like, but I am a programmer and not QA so I expect a lot."
"The only thing I can't wait for is for Zeenyx to add automating Mobile apps."
"I would like to see an improvement in the User Interface."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Zeenyx AscentialTest is ranked 19th in Functional Testing Tools with 13 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Zeenyx AscentialTest is rated 9.4. 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 Zeenyx AscentialTest writes "Robust automation with reusable steps and seamless integration". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test, whereas Zeenyx AscentialTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca and SmartBear TestComplete. See our Selenium HQ vs. Zeenyx AscentialTest 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.