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."The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"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."
"AscentialTest's object recognition in snapshots is a robust feature that goes beyond standard elements, even accurately identifying objects within Datawindows."
"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."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"Selenium could offer better ways to record and create scripts. IDE is available, however, it can be improved."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"The only thing I can't wait for is for Zeenyx to add automating Mobile apps."
"Classes are not as object-oriented as I would like, but I am a programmer and not QA so I expect a lot."
"I would like to see an improvement in the User Interface."
"Streamlining the retrieval of results from individual test set runs would be beneficial."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Zeenyx AscentialTest is ranked 19th in Functional Testing Tools with 13 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Zeenyx AscentialTest is rated 9.4. 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 Zeenyx AscentialTest writes "Robust automation with reusable steps and seamless integration". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio 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.