QF-Test vs. Selenium: Comparing Efficiency, Maintainability, and Cost
Selenium is well-suited for developer teams with a strong code focus, while QF-Test is often used in mixed QA teams where maintainability is more important than maximum flexibility.
- Compared to Selenium, QF-Test offers significantly easier maintainability through robust object recognition, centralized object management, and intuitive modularization, whereas Selenium tests typically require more upkeep and programming skills.
- QF-Test features a lower learning curve for software testers thanks to its record-and-playback functionality and comprehensive documentation, while Selenium can be complex, especially for those new to test automation.
- Scalability is achieved efficiently in QF-Test through reusable modules, data-driven tests, and seamless CI integration, while Selenium projects can quickly become difficult to manage without a solid framework. When it comes to desktop support, QF-Test stands out by supporting not only web but also Java and Windows applications, whereas Selenium is focused on web testing only.
- Although long-term costs with Selenium are low due to its free license, the increased maintenance and training effort can significantly raise the total cost of ownership compared to the commercial QF-Test solution, which includes professional support.
| Selenium | QF-Test | |
|---|---|---|
| Setup and configuration | ||
| —- | —- | —- |
| Easy installation, also for non-programmers | ❌ | ✅ |
| Technology support | ||
| Web applications | ✅ | ✅ |
| Java applications | ❌ | ✅ |
| Windows applications | ❌ | ✅ |
| Android applications | ❌ | ✅ |
| iOS applications | ❌ | ✅ |
| Combined/hybrid applications | ❌ | ✅ |
| Target user group | ||
| Testers | ❌ | ✅ |
| Developers | ✅ | ✅ |
| Capture & replay | ||
| Recording of actions | Firefox Plugin, restricted | ✅ |
| Recording of checks | restricted | ✅ |
| Direct editing of recorded steps | ❌ | ✅ |
| Component recognition | ||
| Robust object identification | ❌ | ✅ |
| Central UI object map UI objects | have to be managed on code level | ✅ |
| Generic UI object classes | ❌ | ✅ |
| Easy direct item access e. g. trees, tables | ❌ | ✅ |
| Use of XPath expressions | ✅ | ✅ |
| Automatic UI object synchronization | ❌ | ✅ |
| Support for dynamic ids | ||
| Robust recognition | ❌ | ✅ |
| Explicit support for several popular web UI component libraries | ❌ | ✅ |
| Test run analysis and reporting | ||
| Easy-to-read run logs | ❌ | ✅ |
| Configurable reports | ❌ | ✅ |
| Maintainability | ||
| Easy maintenance | ❌ | ✅ |
| Modularization / reusability | ||
| Easy modularization and reusability | Requires objectoriented programming knowledge | ✅ |
| Data-driven testing | ||
| Easy definition and integration of data sources | ❌ | ✅ |
| IDE integration / headless testing | ||
| Eclipse plugin | ✅ | ✅ |
| Headless testing | ✅ | ✅ |
| Dokumentation | ||
| Comprehensive documentation | ❌ | ✅ |
| Video tutorials | ❌ | ✅ |
| Support services | ||
| Professional support from the authors | ❌ | ✅ |
| Training/Consulting from the authors | ❌ | ✅ |
| Free Special webinars on important topics | ❌ | ✅ |
| License | ||
| Free License | ✅ | Commercial license |
Selenium vs. QF-Test
Which one fits to my team and our requirements best?
- Instead of an either-or-question we recommend using the benefits of both tools. With Selenium (or the extension Selenium IDE) you can you can, for example, work when dialogues play a minor role in the system test. However, QF-Test is better suited for dialogues.
- Also you can only use Web tests with Selenium in Firefox or Chrome (playback is also possible in more browsers). QF-Test supports additional browsers for web tests (Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Microsoft Edge (Chromium based) and Internet Explorer; also 64bit) as well as the headless browser versions of Chrome, Firefox and Edge (Chromium based) and is easier to handle for testers.
- You can even integrate your existing Java based Selenium tests in QF-Test and since QF-Test version 4.1 develop combined Selenium/QF-Test tests. Whenever bugs occur testers and developers can communicate quickly and have a common basis for the same target of a high quality software.
Why should I pay for a commercial tool instead of using a freeware tool?
The tool price is only a small part of the test project costs. The main part is the personnel costs, i.e. the effectiveness with which tests can be implemented and maintained is the most decisive factor. This is not taken into account in the pure tool price consideration. In addition, the test tool pays for itself after approximately 3 test cycles.
QF-Test in comparison
Compared to this competing products, QF-Test offers various advantages as a mature tool for test automation.
