We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Regression Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"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."
"It is very stable."
"The solution is free to use."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"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."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"Selenium integration."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"The login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ"
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"We'd like to see some more image management in future releases."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
"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."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"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."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"In SmartBear TestComplete the integration with Jenkins could be easier. Additionally, some of the controls could have better customization options. For example, if a grid is used and it contains multiple controls within it, it can be a checkbox, radio button, or any kind of control, the way the Object Spy is operating currently there is a lot of room for improvement."
"I didn't use it very heavily. One issue that I found was that there wasn't a quick way or a button to move Visual Basic scripts to TestComplete. We have a lot of such scripts in our organization, and it would be very useful to have some option to easily move these scripts. It is currently possible to convert these scripts to TestComplete, but it is not easy. I have to write some code, but everything is not available immediately."
Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Regression Testing Tools with 102 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 6th in Regression Testing Tools with 70 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". 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 froglogic Squish, 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 Regression Testing Tools vendors and best Functional 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.
