Sauce Labs is a cloud-based platform
for automated testing of desktop and mobile applications. It is designed to be instantly scalable, since it is optimized for continuous
integration workflows. (The vendor says that when tests are automated and run in parallel on
multiple virtual machines across many different browser, platform and device
combinations, testing time is reduced and developer time is freed up from
managing infrastructure.) The Sauce Labs testing cloud is intended to be paired…
$19
per month
Selenium
Score 8.4 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 7.9 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
Sauce Labs
Selenium
TestComplete
Editions & Modules
Live Testing
$19.00
per month
Virtual Cloud
$149.00
per month
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
Sauce Labs
Selenium
TestComplete
Free Trial
Yes
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Yes
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
Optional
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
Free service available for Open Source projects.
—
Pay 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
Sauce Labs
Selenium
TestComplete
Considered Multiple Products
Sauce Labs
Verified User
Team Lead
Chose Sauce Labs
Mostly all the customers are using Selenium for automated test cases. Sauce Labs supports Selenium and webdriver compatible which we liked most.
BrowserStack is too slow and costs the same as Sauce labs. They also don’t have as many capabilities as Sauce. Selenium grid is too much of a maintenance nightmare.
Sauce labs held it's own against Selenium GRID. Maintenance was a key factor, as this is removed from the equation with Sauce Labs. With a GRID, you have to be on the ball with every latest development with Appium, various drivers, etc. Also, the video replay in sauce labs …
I previously used Jenkins for continuous running of our tests. But I found that UI is not very user friendly and also no proper logging and video recording available. So we decided sauce labs over Jenkins.
Sauce Labs is easier to configure, also it has a great documentation which helps a non-technical user in a great way. Sauce Labs is pretty good in performance compared to BrowserStack. And with a variety of support for different automation tools, makes a Sauce Labs 100% a first …
Sauce labs is faster and integrates with a lot of technologies. Sauce Labs user interface is very user friendly and easy to use. Once you define the parameters for your test runs it is very simple to let that go and just wait for the results, everything gets recorded so you can …
SauceLabs is really known to us because we have used Sauce Labs since 2012..2013 and we're really happy with it. I don't know if we'll change Sauce Labs. But we do not know any other product that has significant key features that Sauce does not have.
With SauceLabs, it may be cheaper to use the service, or not. And you don’t have to manage/maintain cloud servers (e.g. turn on, off, etc.). It’s all managed for you and on demand. Those are the advantages.
I evaluated Browser Stack at the same time I tried Sauce Labs and the ease of use of Sauce Labs made it an instant winner to me. I found Browser Stack (in early 2015) to be a little cumbersome to use and navigation wasn't always very intuitive to me where Sauce Labs excelled …
We built out a monstrosity that barely achieved our goals, and ran on our local network before Sauce. WE also frequently investigate other vendors to make sure we are getting the best product. We have yet to evaluate a tool that meets the same level of quality we receive from …
BrowserStack captures more market share than Sauce Labs does as of this writing, and thus has a much larger support network. During testing, it was also a little faster to spin-up virtual machines, and substantially quicker spinning-up mobile simulators and emulators. Pricing …
Sauce Labs (when applied properly) seems to be a more efficient cross browser solution, while offering way, waaaaay more functionality and capability. In fact, sometimes it felt like there was too much baked in there and that Sauce might need to be broken into smaller pieces …
We determined, after much research and data collecting, that Sauce Labs was a better overall solution to our organization's tech needs. Our QA team was very invested in making a decision that we could be happy with not just now, but in the long term. Having to switch from one …
The only other company I know of that provides similar service is BrowserStack, I spent some time a few years ago while comparing the two of them to decide which one to buy for our needs, and we decided to go with sauce labs. The main reason at the time was the video recordings …
In the past, I have had my own labs. Trying to keep machines updated, running, and everything else is a pain. And it's very costly. Using Sauce Labs I pay a small monthly fee, and I have all the pain taken away. How amazing is that? From a manager's perspective, my people don't …
We previously used AWS and switched to Sauce Labs because of the ability to use numerous OS/browser combinations and not having to set those up in AWS.
Sauce Labs was found to be both faster and cheaper. Speed was our primary concern as we probably run a couple hundred tests per hour, and have a lot of developers that get blocked waiting for tests.
TestComplete is more like an enterprise automation testing tool, that consists of many built-in functions. The license is rather expensive https://smartbear.com/product/testcomplete/pricing/. TestComplete's user community is not as large as Selenium user. Smartbear's …
Verified User
Team Lead
Chose Selenium
It is one of the leading open source tools with lot of good features to go well with web automation.
I have the most experience with selenium. I have used form filler, which is a Google add-on that allows you to create a form quickly. This is a little easier to use and has less setup time than selenium IDE, however, it is less powerful. I picked selenium because it is an …
In the end we did not select Selenium. For a company that is well established it is best to spend a little extra cash and get the support that a paid company offers. If something goes wrong you can easily contact them.
Selenium does not offer that although there are third-party …
HQ UFT, it is one of the best and has more abilities but it is too much expensive while Selenium is free. SmartBear TestComplete, same reason as UFT. Watir, it is a Selenium-like open source project but has less features and limited documentation.
HP UFT vs. Selenium - the major difference is that Selenium is free and open source. So there is a lot of money saved upfront on licensing - moreover with UFT/QTP VB scripting is a must and VB is not a very flexible language, is outdated and is a hard skill to find these days.
TestComplete is easy to set up and allows you to map certain objects with it's play and record feature. We can then convert that to scripts and use those scripts to update other existing scripts if the Xpath is not being read properly. We compared it to Selenium, which you have …
Previously I was working on Selenium with Java for automating the test cases/scenarios and to perform regression testing in web applications. And for the last few months, I have been working with TestComplete on automating desktop and web applications. And I like the name …
UFT, TOSCA, and open-source Selenium/Cucumber based. The ease of use with TestComplete is comparable to TOSCA, but it is a lot cheaper and allows for a better ROI. UFT is better at recognizing elements and different technologies based on Java. TestComplete is easier to set up …
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 …
Selenium gets a lot of mileage for being opensource and free, but in terms of features, ease of use, and the added support and development structure of an enterprise product, TestComplete is the clean cut winner.
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 …
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 …
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.
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
I have used UFT, Katalon Studio. UFT has robust object recognition engine than TestComplete. For example, Katalon Studio supports Groovy and Java so it is easier for programmers/testers to automate apps in java as it is a popular language, but TC doesn't support it.
It's a great tool with a lot of in built features and support for cloud. In the market, there are many test tools available and there are many open source tools too. But this tool has some unique features which fair well.
We also evaluated Rational Functional Tester and QuickTest Pro. These other tools were a little more difficult to implement and very costly. They were not as flexible as TestComplete. The sales staff around TestComplete was friendlier and more responsive. They made us feel …
TestComplete was expensive as compared to the other tools that we used and did not live up to the expectation. Only good thing with TestComplete is that the test integration for multiple platform is pretty good and works well as compared to these individual tools as these are …
Having used some of the competitor's tools over the year I would say that SauceLabs provides a lot of value for money if you plan to run long sets of tests with high frequencies. Paying for a single slot means you can run tests whenever you want without creeping costs but it does make running tests in parallel require an extra slot. Currently, our test suite takes over three hours to run and at the moment it is cost prohibitive to purchase an extra slot. However, having access to live testing and integration with Appium is great.
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.
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
I've had four changes in account managers over the past couple of years. They ranged from super experienced/advocate to some that seems relatively junior/a bit removed. I understand this happens but clarity on what I can expect with these partnerships would be valuable. What I've gotten in the end has varied dramatically.
Selenium is pretty user-friendly but sometimes tests tend to flake out. I'd say roughly one out of twenty tests yields a false positive.
Selenium software cannot read images. This is a minor negative because a free plug-in is available from alternate sources.
Slowness may be a minor factor with Selenium, though this is an issue with basically any testing software since waiting on a site to execute JavaScript requires the browser to wait for a particular action.
TestComplete could stand to have a simplified view for different types of users. For instance, as a manager/architecture guy, I'm not so interested in getting into the code and am more interested in file-based interactions.
TestComplete could use more integration with reporting for things like TeamCity to improve test status visibility.
As we currently know, there's nothing on the market with a big feature set like saucelabs at their current price point. Along with the business not having to learn a whole new tool to use again and the ability to refresh our private devices and the continuously growing number of public devices available and features.
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.
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.
It is an incredibly easy service to use for what its primary intention is. The only reason a point is deducted is because more feature enrichment can be done around the Sauce Connect Proxy utility and the Jenkins Sauce OnDemand plugin. User Account administration also needs more work, such as the addition of user groups, rather than a simple hierarchy of users.
For those who are unfamiliar with coding, there is a bit of a learning curve. There is plenty of helpful documentation and resources but it can take a little time to get the software up and running. Once you get the hang of how Selenium works, and what it can do, you realize how many things you can use it for, and how many processes you can automate.
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.
Yes, Sauce labs is always there, and it is easy to troubleshoot when you are having any connectivity issue, they always keep you informed when they plan to perform any type of maintenance window on their side in advance, so you can plan and will not affect your current work. I do not recall any outage.
The time where they acquired TestObject and were trying to integrate their services would probably be the most annoying time. Annoying as features were in two separate places (websites) for example. But since the introduction of their unified platform, we haven't run into any issues as of yet and we've used them for at least 5-6 years now.
The people here are just so friendly and personable. For instance, Tristan Lombard answered every single email with a very cheery tone and not only did he diagnose my issue, he also made sure to ask how my day was going. Keep it up
The Selenium app has a pretty fat community of users. For the problems we are experiencing, we are primarily receiving support from these communities. In addition, there is widespread service support. Instant support is given to the problems we experience when we need Online support. We and our team are happy to provide this support, especially before important deployment processes
I am not sure if it's my company that makes getting Sauce Labs integrated into the team difficult or is it Sauce Labs. The process for getting Sauce Labs for a project is quite a tedious process and the information for using Sauce Labs initially is quite lacking. There is little support for getting started
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.
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
We have also tested out Browser Stack, which at the time was more geared towards manual testing. Although it appeared to support more mobile devices/browsers, we also wanted something that can plugin in easily with our existing Selenium test scripts. Sauce Labs was definitely more geared towards our goals at the moment which were to automation functional/regression testing and build it into our release pipeline.
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.
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.
With private devices, you have full reign over usage of them, so no complaints there. Public devices are available if no one else is using it, which is understandable. Browser VMs are based on number of open sessions and Saucelabs give you a certain number depending on what you need. If you need more, then you pay for more. It is as simple as that. You need more devices, then you can pay for more private ones too. A workaround for public devices is to pick the first available one and not be too picky, that's if you are able to of course.
Saves hundreds of man-hours with either QA testing or data entry
With the small cost of the product, it has saved the company money with both employee costs as well as the cost of mistakes made by human error or software bugs