We performed a comparison between ReadyAPI Test 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."ReadyAPI has the power to enrich all the technical work. You can achieve any complex task using ReadyAPI. I can also do UI automation with ReadyAPI. In a few test cases, we want to check the API and the equivalent UI. I download a job and write a piece of Groovy or Java code. It's almost the same in ReadyAPI. I can do that in a single test case. ReadyAPI is a powerful tool because you can do anything you want, but only you need to download the right set of jobs and produce the right set of code."
"The tool’s scalability is very good."
"The solution offers excellent integration capabilities."
"The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on."
"One good feature is SoapUI's URL check, which allows you to check among the applications. I'm not just talking about the ones for Android. It has all kinds of multi-world tests that are really helpful."
"Using SoapUI's automation suites to run all our test cases saved us a lot of time. Running 300 test cases takes about three to four days. When you automate all that, it takes only two to three hours."
"The Pro and free version of SoapUI Pro has good technical support."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"I like its simplicity."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"What I like the most about this product is that it gives us a lot of freedom to code anything, there is no restriction on the type of function you can do."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"The tool is easy to use and log in with respect to other tools. It is open-source. We can customize the product. I also like its security."
"If the load and bare minimum could be defined, I would give this solution a higher rating."
"We tried automation but it's not easy to integrate with the synching and some of the mission tools that we use for automated testing of APIs."
"I would like more documentation, training, tutorials, etc. Also, I don't particularly appreciate that I have to save everything. It takes up a lot of space on my laptop, but I have to install the WSDL again If I don't save it."
"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."
"The UI could be a bit more flexible."
"Grouping of the cases is not possible in SoapUI, to my knowledge. When working with critical cases or the, we were not able to group them properly. We can definitely create a suite and add them there, but within a whole suite, we have to identify them, which was not easy."
"Could integrate the graphing module for load testing."
"Automation features are not user-friendly."
"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."
"Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%."
"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
ReadyAPI Test is ranked 15th in Functional Testing Tools with 31 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. ReadyAPI Test is rated 8.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of ReadyAPI Test writes "Has out-of-the-box database support and can be easily used by non-technical staff ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". ReadyAPI Test is most compared with Postman, ReadyAPI, Broadcom Service Virtualization, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText UFT One, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our ReadyAPI Test vs. Selenium HQ 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.
