We performed a comparison between ReadyAPI Test and Selenium HQ 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 Pro and free version of SoapUI Pro has good technical support."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"It clearly makes it easy to test APIs based on the SOAP protocol. We are a logistics company, and we have lots of tracking calls coming in. We provide APIs for tracking services, and it makes sense for us to use SoapUI to test them thoroughly."
"Using SoapUI's automation suites to run all our test cases saved us a lot of time. Running 300 test cases takes about three to four days. When you automate all that, it takes only two to three hours."
"API mockups, functional testing, and load testing are valuable features."
"ReadyAPI has the power to enrich all the technical work. You can achieve any complex task using ReadyAPI. I can also do UI automation with ReadyAPI. In a few test cases, we want to check the API and the equivalent UI. I download a job and write a piece of Groovy or Java code. It's almost the same in ReadyAPI. I can do that in a single test case. ReadyAPI is a powerful tool because you can do anything you want, but only you need to download the right set of jobs and produce the right set of code."
"It's a very simple solution to use."
"The tool’s scalability is very good."
"I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"The stability and performance are good."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"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."
"There aren't any plugins for UI automation. You need to make a custom code and download a job to put into the libraries. If it were panelized, then it would be straightforward. It should be in a panel of the tools, so you can add those tools as your test step in your test cases."
"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."
"Could integrate the graphing module for load testing."
"The UI could be a bit more flexible."
"It is limited to scope and risk services only. It does have some support for JMS, but it is not out-of-the-box; you have to do some tweaks here and there."
"SoapUI Pro is a little heavy due to the number of features. Previously it was not that heavy. Now the tool is too heavy, they should work on fixing this issue because until your system has lots of resources, you won't be able to use it seamlessly. The performance of the application itself could improve."
"ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would be beneficial. It needs to improve stability and scalability as well. The tool's support is slow, and takes months to reach a solution."
"SoapUI Pro could improve by having dashboards."
"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."
"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."
"We'd like to see some more image management in future releases."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
ReadyAPI Test is ranked 15th in Functional Testing Tools with 31 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. ReadyAPI Test is rated 8.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of ReadyAPI Test writes "Has out-of-the-box database support and can be easily used by non-technical staff ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". ReadyAPI Test is most compared with Postman, ReadyAPI, Broadcom Service Virtualization, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText UFT One, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our ReadyAPI Test vs. Selenium HQ 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.
