Selenium vs. TestComplete

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Selenium
Score 8.1 out of 10
N/A
Selenium is open source software for browser automation, primarily used for functional, load, or performance testing of applications.N/A
TestComplete
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
TestComplete is a GUI test automation tool that enables users of all skill levels to test the UI of every desktop, web, and mobile application. TestComplete is best suited for testers, automation engineers, and QA teams in any industry.
$2,256
per license
Pricing
SeleniumTestComplete
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Node-Locked Base
2,256
per license
Node-Locked Pro
3,950
per license
Float - Base
5,077
per license
Float - Pro
7,901
per license
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
SeleniumTestComplete
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsPay for only the modules needed. TestComplete Pro includes all three modules: desktop, web, and mobile, at a bundled price point, as well as access to the parallel testing engine, TestExecute. TestComplete has additional add-ons, including TestExecute and the Intelligent Quality Add-On.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
SeleniumTestComplete
Considered Both Products
Selenium
Chose Selenium
When we compared Selenium to Saucelabs, [we found that] both have their own set of advantages but [preferred] Selenium [in the end]. [With] Selenium we have a uniform setup in place to test both the framework and grid which makes it preferable over Saucelabs. [The] test …
Chose Selenium
At the time of adoption, there were not many other alternatives that were even close to being competitive when it comes to browser testing. As far as I know now to this day, there is still little competition to Selenium for what it does. Any other browser-based testing still …
Chose Selenium
I did not have used any other yet.
Chose Selenium
Customers are always spending less cost on tools and prefer open-source tools which leverage all applications Can be tailored your framework in selenium according to application Moreover CI/CD pipeline is easy in selenium compared to other tools Can be built custom test …
Chose Selenium
The main Selenium usage is in the security field. Selenium drives the web application and let ZAP test some piece of software and UI in order to find security issues. Is Jenkins in charge to run it and manage reports? For the reporting, we tried many solutions, including …
Chose Selenium
Open sourced and free: Multiple language support: The community: Wide plugin support: Easy installation and intuitive usage: Cross-browser support: Remote testing: Multiple testing and parallel testing execution:
Chose Selenium
Selenium is way better than those two as it's free and has great community support.
Chose Selenium
ReadyAPI (formerly SoapUI Pro, LoadUI Pro, & ServiceV Pro), TestComplete, Micro Focus UFT One (formerly HP UFT), Apache JMeter and Selenium
Chose Selenium
The main reason I prefer Selenium is because it has a fairly common user community and because it is open source, it works on many platforms (Windows, Linux, IOS) without any problems. In addition, it gives us a lot of options for writing functional tests. For errors that we …
Chose Selenium
Since it is an open-source testing tool, there is no licensing cost involved. Selenium is a cross-platform tool that supports cross-browser testing. To manage and report test cases Selenium can be easily integrated with frameworks like JUnit, TestNG.
Chose Selenium
I have used Winium, Sikuli, and Auto IT to do the automation with windows-based applications. Mostly, I will use Selenium only.
Chose Selenium
We have looked at other options, but none are open source like Selenium and easily plug able into different web applications. Selenium does not cost anything, and although you don't get support for it, there are many technical forums our there that provide troubleshooting if …
Chose Selenium
The first obvious thing is Selenium, an open-source tool, and it has a wide-open community for support. Well, on the other hand, Silk Test is a paid tool. With the combination of different tools in the market, we can build a solution for Web and Mobile based automation using …
Chose Selenium
UFT is a paid tool from microfocus and able to automated alomsts all platforms but there is Fee for licensed versions software. TOSCA is also a paid tool from Tricentis which does not require coding skills from tester and implements mode based automation. where as selenium is …
Chose Selenium
We use both the products in our work. Mostly we avoid Selenium because we have replaced that half of the work with RPA, which works faster than Selenium and with less brainstorming. Some of our work can only be done with Selenium, while some of our work can work faster with RPA.
Chose Selenium
Our marketing automation application is built on AngularJS and have a lot of JavaScript specialization inside our company use Protractor.
Chose Selenium
All alternatives are not listed here (like QTP), but Selenium beats all of them because it's free, there are tons of guides and tutorials on the internet, and there are lots of extra libraries that use Selenium.
Chose Selenium
We were considering HP QTP against Selenium.
but we chose Selenium because of the following reasons:
1. Selenium is more widely used and has more online support community
Chose Selenium
Ghost Inspector, a cloud-based automated web app testing tool, used for recording and playback, a lot like Selenium IDE. Ghost Inspector provides Google Chrome and Firefox plugins to record browser actions and allows users to save the tests on their cloud platform. It allows …
TestComplete
Chose TestComplete
TestStand is a much more complex tool than TestComplete and it's for a little bit different solutions I think. For desktop apps I would use the TestComplete, For Mobile / Web -> Python + Behave + Pytest selenium - TestComplete is much overcomplicated and slow! For …
Chose TestComplete
SonarQube and Visual Studio Test Professional
Chose TestComplete
We still use both products in our company, since Postman is mainly used for backend automation and TestComplete for frontend automation. The difference is that via Postman you can easily write tests that send different requests to your server, get the response, and compare them …
Chose TestComplete
I have evaluated Tricentis Tosca and another product along with TestComplete. TestComplete is much better [and more] user friendly.
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete stacks up against them in terms of GUI and seamless performance. It records each and every step and action been performed in the application and produces a detailed report in a well-structured manner. It can connect and access seamlessly among various databases …
Chose TestComplete
For their special field (API & web testing) I choose those products over TestComplete
Chose TestComplete
Below are the points why we selected TestComplete 1. Better UI. 2. Plenty of validation cases supports i.e. checkpoints. 3. Multiple scripting languages. 4. Better accuracy and robustness. 5. Good documentation and Video tutorials. 6. Great support team.
Chose TestComplete
Based on my evaluation regards to the product cost, useability, the TestComplete came first on my selections.
Chose TestComplete
The major advantage over other tools is the ease of use. A chimp will be able to figure out TestComplete whereas the others require extensive coding knowledge
Chose TestComplete
I know from using other tools in the past years that TestComplete could be more cost-effective, yet still get the job done.
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete is more complete than Cypress.io because Cypress.io is only used to complete end-to-end testing for web apps. These two tools are user friendly and easy to use. For the needs of our company, we have chosen TestComplete for the variety of testing applications.
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete is a robust test automation tool and not for someone who expects to just record and playback. This can be done with [TestComplete], but the strength of the tool is the ability to code complex actions and capturing of objects. The reporting of results is also …
Chose TestComplete
It has been almost 5 years since we researched products, but TestComplete gave us the best overall advantage to achieve our goals. So, that is why we chose it.
Chose TestComplete
It's been a long time so it may not be a fair assessment, but I don't recall IBM's product being as easy to use or have as many features.
Chose TestComplete
We used before the Coded UI Tests which are in Visual Studio / Azure DevOps, and the tests were impossible to maintain and very very flaky. Then in 2015, we selected TestComplete, as it was clearly the tool with the most feature for desktop UI testing. Selenium was …
Chose TestComplete
We are using Katalon for web-based applications, mainly because our QA engineers have a strong experience with it. But it does not allow precise item identification in Delphi-based applications and that was a show stopper for us. Having received recommendations for …
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete was selected after trying multiple product offerings. Initially these product offerings were installed with trail keys, and various factors were weighted and sized based on complexity to install, and ease of use. TestComplete scored higher than any other product …
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete gives the best option of record and playback. Also, it does not have any problem with object recognition just like Selenium.

Selenium needs more manual efforts in selecting the object properties and utilizing them. Also, Selenium needs a good command of one coding …
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete stacks up because its UI is easier to use than that of Ranorex Studio.
Chose TestComplete
We aren't 100% sure that we will stick with TestComplete for our web-based UI testing for the long haul because Selenium is a bit lighter on the overhead front, but we definitely really like it for testing our standalone applications and utilities. As far as a complete testing …
Chose TestComplete
We use TestExecute together with TestComplete. The ease of use is one of the reasons we have stuck with it for years now. Developers are satisfied due to the time saved with this tool. If you are still hesitating—don’t. We try to find the replacement, but so far can’t because …
Best Alternatives
SeleniumTestComplete
Small Businesses
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.6 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.6 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 7.0 out of 10
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 7.0 out of 10
Enterprises
ignio AIOps
ignio AIOps
Score 8.1 out of 10
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 7.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
SeleniumTestComplete
Likelihood to Recommend
9.2
(0 ratings)
7.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
9.2
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.8
(0 ratings)
7.8
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
8.3
(0 ratings)
6.6
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
9.0
(0 ratings)
6.7
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
SeleniumTestComplete
Likelihood to Recommend
When you have to test the UI and how it behaves when certain actions are performed, you need something that can automate the browsers. This is where Selenium comes to the rescue. If you have to test APIs and not the frontend (UI), I would recommend going with other libraries that support HTTP Requests. Selenium is good only when you have no choice but to run the steps on a browser.
Read full review
Best suited to smaller unit test or tests broken up, couple of forms at a time Not suited - larger regressions test involving multiple systems. - my main regression involving payments has been unsuccessful for the last 3 years despite all working fine separately and while being watched
Read full review
Pros
  • For any web based UI automation, Selenium is the best tool out there to automate your tests.
  • It supports multiple coding languages like Java, Python, Ruby, C# etc.. to choose from.
  • There is a huge community of users and can get many answers on StackOverFlow.
  • It has lot of other plugins to make your tests even more efficient.
Read full review
  • TestComplete is great for working with our non-web applications.
  • TestComplete allows us to interface with our web application in a robust way.
  • Despite the age of our architecture, TestComplete handles the old stuff that's been around a while as well as the newer technology when we are able to implement it.
Read full review
Cons
  • Recognize Adobe Flash and MS Silver Light elements without additional help
  • Detect and locate Java applets ingredients
  • Having the "Wait-till-Displayed" or "Wait-till-Present" as a built in Web Driver function instead of requirement for writing loops and defining expliccit wait, visiblewait, invisiblewait, etc.
Read full review
  • Would love to see TC be a plugin for Visual Studio. Instead of VBScript or JavaScript, to use C# or VB.NET
  • Easier to set up with iOS. Android is not bad but iOS seems slow and confusing to get up and running
  • Built-in PDF reading support, built in Excel API
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
We love this product mainly because of its high customization abilities and the ease of use. Moreover, its free and can be learned easily through online communities and videos. The tests are more consistent and reliable as compared to Manual tests. It has enabled us to test a large number of features all in one go, which would have impossible through manual tests. The reports generated at the end of the tests are really helpful for the QA and the development teams to get a fair view of the application.
Read full review
We have bigger test automation pack using test complete at the same time we also think this is not good performing tool for large number of test automation scripts.
Read full review
Usability
As I mentioned earlier, the reason I use Selenium is because there is a fairly widespread community of users, and user support services are at a good level. because the application is open source, it works on many platforms (Windows, Linux, IOS) without any problems. In addition, it gives us a lot of options for writing functional tests. For errors that we receive through the application, we can easily find the reasons for errors in the forums.
Read full review
It is usable when you become accustomed to its quirks. Not using it for two months and then you need to re-learn the quirks for some features (but some quirks are so awful that they will never fade from your memory). So, when using it regularly, it is possible to be quite productive, if no big correction in name mapping is needed.
Read full review
Support Rating
Selenium does not have technical support available easily. You have to go through forums to get the information you need. However, there are excellent forums out there that make it easy to troubleshoot. The open-source flexibility makes it difficult to have dedicated support.
Read full review
Some bugs were quickly resolved, but most UX quirks of the tool are just marked "as designed". No follow up for enhancement request.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
We did everything we needed to use it. Now we can execute our tests on different operational systems and browsers running few tests simultaneously. We also implemented Appium framework to execute our tests on mobile devices, such as iPhones, iPads, Android phones and tablets. We use SauceLabs for our test execution and Jenkins for continuous integration.
Read full review
If you develop a mobile application and your testing process goes in cloud, probably you will face a problem - how to implement a stable connection between your mobile devices and testing servers
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
At the time of adoption, there were not many other alternatives that were even close to being competitive when it comes to browser testing. As far as I know now to this day, there is still little competition to Selenium for what it does. Any other browser-based testing still utilises Selenium to interact with the browser.
Read full review
TestComplete stacks up against them in terms of GUI and seamless performance. It records each and every step and action been performed in the application and produces a detailed report in a well-structured manner. It can connect and access seamlessly among various databases directly to speed up the testing process.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Generation of detailed finding reports helped in cost savings in regard to direct labor.
  • Quality Assurance technicians found value in repeating mundane duties that they perform daily. It saved mental energy due to the automation process.
  • The value was established in high volume usage in setting up meetings as well as new accounts with A/B testing. Also merely cleaning up old test documents by evaluating them and organization or deletion.
Read full review
  • Improved product quality overall, since automating tedious tests frees up time and is not prone to fatigue
  • When getting started - depending on the complexity of the software/UI tested - it can be a time sink before it brings actual value, and changes to the structure of the UI need to be communicated early, so the changes can be implemented on time to run the automation
  • Once set up, the maintenance cost is low, and the automation frees up a lot of resources especially in an agile environment where there are a lot of releases that would need regression tests.
Read full review
ScreenShots