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."I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"I like its simplicity."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"The most valuable features are test executor and development."
"Sometimes we face challenges with Selenium HQ. There are third party tools that we use, for example for reading the images, that are not easy to plug in. The third party add-ons are difficult to get good configuration and do not have good support. I would like to see better integration with other products."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
"There are some tiny issues with SeleniumHQ. For example, with respect to the scraping tests. Sometimes, a website will have some hidden items or blockages that inhibit us from extracting data directly. It would be beneficial if Selenium could extract that information."
"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."
"Selenium could offer better ways to record and create scripts. IDE is available, however, it can be improved."
"In the beginning, we had issues with several test cases failing during regression. Over a period of time, we built our own framework around Selenium which helped us overcome of these issues."
"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.