Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Selenium HQ vs SmartBear TestLeft comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (4th)
SmartBear TestLeft
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
38th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Selenium HQ is 3.2%, down from 4.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestLeft is 0.4%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Selenium HQ3.2%
SmartBear TestLeft0.4%
Other96.4%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
Automation in testing processes sees improvement with multi-browser support and easier website interactions
Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks. The tool could simplify object identification, enabling users to generate XPaths without requiring detailed DOM understanding. Additionally, an automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
reviewer1378161 - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Consultant at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
Simple to set up and the test execute feature is helpful, but the cost could be reduced
Our primary use case is Point of Sale (POS) testing The most valuable features are test executor and development. TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved. We have been using SmartBear TestLeft for the past month. Stability-wise, TestLeft is…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems."
"Selenium is easy to use, with a straightforward setup and many reusable features."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"The most valuable features are test executor and development."
 

Cons

"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"The latest versions are often unstable."
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"There is a challenge with concurrent testing, where parallelization is not fully supported."
"I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more."
"TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"The product is open-source and free."
"It's open-source, so it's free."
"Selenium is open-source."
"It is an open-source tool."
"There is no pricing cost. License is Apache License 2.0."
"Since it is an open source. It is free to use. However my company see it as the future of load testing."
"The pricing is open source."
"The cost should be reduced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Healthcare Company
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise33
Large Enterprise51
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
I will give an eight for my satisfaction with the pricing and licensing costs of Selenium HQ.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

SeleniumHQ
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
American Red Cross, CISCO, HONDA, ADIDAS, TBC bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Worksoft, BrowserStack and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.