We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Tricentis Tosca based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: After comparing all parameters, Selenium HQ seems to be the more popular choice, since it is open-source and has very good documentation and community-based support available.
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"We are satisfied with the support of Tricentis."
"You can quickly build automated testing, manage it, and have it run on a regular basis to ensure that there are no issues."
"This solution is very easy to learn and any non-programmer or manual tester, with little experience in automation, can pick it up quite easily."
"I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have enterprise-level customers."
"This tool has test data management capability along with test management."
"The tool's most valuable feature is Tosca Commander."
"The solution has plenty of features compared to other solutions."
"With one click, it will scan all the elements on the screen, so that the user can select the required elements for automation tests."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"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."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"The Test Management options are still weak - improvement is outlined, but not yet visible. I"
"Setup wasn't that straightforward; it was more complex. It all depends on the environment, because there were a lot of errors on our applications. Therefore, it wasn't an easy setup for us."
"In terms of areas for improvement, Tricentis has a variety of tools, even its test management tool called qTest. Tricentis Tosca does have integration with different Tricentis tools, but the integration is geared towards a larger organization perspective. For very small organizations that have minimal licenses, the integration needs to be improvised. For example, I belong to a smaller organization that has only one license, so the capability that the tool provides for integration isn't sufficient because my company needs to have separate workspaces. When Tricentis Tosca is going to be running, it is going to use that license, but my company wants another separate workspace to record, relay, and test. This is what my team has been struggling with, and the mechanism is probably there, but that needs more time and investigation, so I can't say that I'm one hundred percent certain that Tricentis Tosca, in terms of integration for a smaller organization is insufficient. Another area for improvement is that Tricentis Tosca is currently just a Windows-based tool which affects the market because nowadays, Windows isn't the only operating system, for example, there's also Apple or IOS that's moving much faster than Windows."
"The solution is expensive compared to other tools in the market."
"Very difficult to get information about licensing costs."
"The solution should work with the Linux platform. Right now, it only runs on Windows."
"Not being able to mask test data in relation to testing data management, in my opinion, is also a limitation."
"I would like to be able to manage different projects in one repository or have better data exchange between repositories."
Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Regression Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Regression Testing Tools with 98 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. 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 Tricentis Tosca writes "Does not require coding experience to use and comes with productivity and time-saving features ". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio, OpenText Silk Test and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Tricentis qTest. See our Selenium HQ vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Regression Testing Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Regression 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.
