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."Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"It is a good automation tool."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"It is very stable."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line."
"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."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"I would like to see some reporting or test management tools."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
"At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has reduced the challenges to some extent, as we can now utilize OCR if the normal method doesn't work. Nevertheless, there is still significant potential for improvement in TestComplete's ability to identify various object elements. I don't have any specific concerns to mention. I have observed significant improvements in TestComplete over the past few years, especially in its support for highly dynamic object elements used in products like Salesforce Dynamics 365. In earlier versions, there were numerous challenges, but the current version is far superior to its predecessors."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 71 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 Rational Functional Tester, 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.