We performed a comparison between ReadyAPI 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 most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the scripting tools and the connectivity to external data sources, such as Excel and PDF files. There are plenty of useful features that are useful, such as automating flexibility and usability. Overall, the solution is easy to use."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"I haven't seen any other tool that offers both types of tests. This is very helpful for us, and it's one of the main reasons why we chose this service."
"A single platform for functional testing, load testing security, and service actualization."
"It's easy to learn how to use it."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the drag-and-drop options and the integration with versioning tool solutions, such as Git."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are its robust functionality and collaboration capabilities."
"It has the ability to combine it with different CI/CD tools."
"My customer previously validated every file and it would take almost 15-20 minutes for a document. They used to randomly select and test only 100 out of the thousands, maybe 85,000, files, to pick up sampling. Each file would take around 20 to 25 minutes, so we were not able to do it manually, but with the help of Selenium, we were able to test all the files in two days. It saves a lot of time."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"It is a good automation tool."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"The Property Transfer capability could be more user friendly because it is a bit difficult to understand."
"Performance and memory management both need to be improved because other solutions use less memory for the same amount of data."
"Areas for improvement include the security files, endpoints, and process sessions."
"In terms of features, I have already raised different change requests on the ReadyAPI side. One of the largest functions I've requested is the validation of the payload for the REST APIs."
"Lacking flexibility of adding more custom verification for security testing."
"ReadyAPI could improve by having dynamic validation information."
"The UI should be flexible. Currently, the UI isn't."
"ReadyAPI can improve because it is limited to only SOAP and REST services. They should update the solution to include more protocols so that other people are not limited to SOAP and REST services. Other than would be able to utilize it."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers. That's why it's not common for end-users, and especially for RPA activities or tasks. It's hard to automate tasks for end-users. If it will be easier, more user-friendly, and so on, perhaps it can be more interesting for this kind of user."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"Selenium could offer better ways to record and create scripts. IDE is available, however, it can be improved."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
ReadyAPI is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 33 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. ReadyAPI is rated 7.6, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, ReadyAPI Test, Tricentis Tosca and Tricentis NeoLoad, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our ReadyAPI vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Functional 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.