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."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."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"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 solution is very easy to implement."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"It is very stable."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"Selenium integration."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"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."
"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."
"The drawback is the solution is not easy to learn."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"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."
"One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git."
"The integration tools could be better."
"Product is not stable enough and it crashes often."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 72 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 DevOps Test UI, 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.