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 interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them."
"The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test."
"When you are working in sprints, you need to have continuous feedback. ReadyAPI definitely helps in automating very fast and rapidly. We have less coding, and we can more easily define our assertions. We don't use it for full-blown performance testing, but normally if you are doing your functional testing, it gives you the request and response time. Anybody who is doing functional testing can see what the request and response times are and raise a flag based upon their business affiliates, that is, whether it is meeting their affiliates. You can identify this during functional testing."
"Reporting is more robust than other products because test reports can be exported in multiple ways."
"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 feature that allows you to import an API collection or a project is valuable."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"It's great for those that don't have as much exposure to programming."
"I like its simplicity."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"Selenium HQ lets you create your customized functions with whatever language you want to use, like Python, Java, .NET, etc. You can integrate with Selenium and write."
"ReadyAPI could improve by having dynamic validation information."
"They have performance testing also. However, it's not that great."
"The performance in some cases needs improvement. Sometimes it requires too many resources."
"The solution is made up of multiple tools, and the one additional feature we'd like to have is load testing."
"The UI should be flexible. Currently, the UI isn't."
"The Property Transfer capability could be more user friendly because it is a bit difficult to understand."
"There is room for improvement in ReadyAPI, particularly in the user interface."
"Version control does not work well."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"The login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ"
"We'd like to see some more image management in future releases."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
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.
