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
39th
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 February 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Selenium HQ is 3.3%, 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 HQ3.3%
SmartBear TestLeft0.4%
Other96.3%
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

"I believe Selenium HQ to be the best solution in the market for automating web applications"
"The solution is very easy to implement."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"I like its simplicity."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"The most valuable features are test executor and development."
 

Cons

"It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"There is a challenge with concurrent testing, where parallelization is not fully supported."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"When we upgrade the version, some features are missing. I want the product to include some AI capabilities."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This is an open-source product that can be used free of charge."
"Selenium is an open-source product. It is free."
"Selenium is open-source."
"There is no pricing cost. License is Apache License 2.0."
"Selenium HQ is open source and our use of it in our company is provided for free."
"This is an open-source product so there is no cost other than manpower."
"The solution is open-source, so it is 100% free with no hidden charges."
"It's open-source, so there's no need to pay for a license."
"The cost should be reduced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Healthcare Company
6%
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 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.
What needs improvement with Selenium HQ?
Some improvements can be implemented as compared to Playwright, which is why I rate it seven out of ten.
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, BrowserStack, Worksoft and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: January 2026.
881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.