We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Zeenyx AscentialTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits."
"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."
"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."
"What I like about Selenium HQ is that we wrote it ourselves. I think it's perfect. It's a framework that you can use to devise your own products, which is nice."
"It's not too complicated to implement."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"The stability and performance are good."
"It’s been really easy to automate the same application TestComplete struggled with. I have been able to automate two of our key applications in just a few months. I haven’t even taken their training."
"If you use the PowerBuilder application, do choose AscentialTest without thinking twice."
"The most valuable feature of AscentialTest for us is that it fully supports PowerBuilder."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"The drawback is the solution is not easy to learn."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers. That's why it's not common for end-users, and especially for RPA activities or tasks. It's hard to automate tasks for end-users. If it will be easier, more user-friendly, and so on, perhaps it can be more interesting for this kind of user."
"Classes are not as object-oriented as I would like, but I am a programmer and not QA so I expect a lot."
"The only thing I can't wait for is for Zeenyx to add automating Mobile apps."
"I would like to see an improvement in the User Interface."
Earn 20 points
Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Zeenyx AscentialTest is ranked 34th in Functional Testing Tools. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Zeenyx AscentialTest is rated 9.4. 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 Zeenyx AscentialTest writes "Easy to create tests because you just drag and drop objects instead of writing code". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Telerik Test Studio, Worksoft Certify, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText Silk Test, whereas Zeenyx AscentialTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca and SmartBear TestComplete.
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.