We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and SmartBear TestLeft based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"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."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"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."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"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."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution."
"The most valuable features are test executor and development."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"The drawback is the solution is not easy to learn."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"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."
"In the beginning, we had issues with several test cases failing during regression. Over a period of time, we built our own framework around Selenium which helped us overcome of these issues."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved."
Earn 20 points
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while SmartBear TestLeft is ranked 33rd in Functional Testing Tools. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestLeft is rated 7.0. 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 TestLeft writes "Simple to set up and the test execute feature is helpful, but the cost could be reduced". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test, whereas SmartBear TestLeft is most compared with SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis Tosca.
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.