So I'm currently researching and comparing test automation tools, that would automate tests on the web (as in, testing a web site), and are relatively cheap and simple.

One such tool I'm looking at is LeapWork. But all I've found review-wise are 2 blogs, where both are short and high-level, and one of them is even from LeapWork's site.

Has anyone here used LeapWork before? If so, what are the pros and cons you've experienced in using LeapWork? Are there also other tools you've used and how do they compare?

I do plan on using the trial myself, but I always like getting other peoples' opinions.

  • 2
    If you are testing a website, any reason you don't want to use Selenium? I mean it is basically the web testing standard tool. Mar 24, 2017 at 18:20
  • @Andarta Leaptest advertises itself to be for non-coders.
    – user246
    Mar 24, 2017 at 18:34
  • @ChrisKenst, I'm not saying I don't want to use Selenium...I'm seeing what options are out there and comparing. Right now what I'm seeing in comparing Selenium and LeapTest is Selenium is free but with LeapTest we could utilize users in creating the tests and doing so is quicker and easier.
    – Andy
    Mar 24, 2017 at 18:52
  • 1
    Every tool for non-coders will create crappy and hard to modify "replay actions" script which will be hard to refactor to something maintainable using pageObject design pattern. Don't waste your time, learn programming. See jamesshore.com/Blog/The-Problems-With-Acceptance-Testing.html Mar 24, 2017 at 19:12
  • 2
    Yes i agree with @PeterMasiar the simpler tools will end up being more painful, and you'll discover that writing test automation requires programming skills. Whatever tools you use, once you start to have complexity - multiple cases and suites, dozens and hundreds of page locators, you'll grind to a halt without a way to organize them. That way is programming. Mar 24, 2017 at 19:17

3 Answers 3


Leaptest focus seems to be as a visual recognition type tools.

These tools are usually fairly limited in functionality and create tests that are fragile and easily broken by page changes.

When using selectors to identify parts of the web page, currently a human programmer will make the best decision, ensuring that the locator is robust, unique and not tied into the page layout

Example: Sometimes table tr td td td would be auto generated by such a tool as a unique identifier but which table cell to use will actually change over time as the table output, layout and content gets changed and what would work much better would be table#todays_selection td.edit_current_amount, i.e. using classes and ID's to narrow down the right element. This assumes that suitable classes, ID's, data attributes, etc. exist on the page. If they don't exist or are used sparingly you will have to be selective in which you use, will require developers to improve identification of elements or, worst choice, you will have to use include layout tags in your tests making them more brittle and likely to break when the pages get changed for non-related reasons.

My advice would be to start using the Firefox seleniumIDE plugin.
When you outgrow it, use ruby-rspec-selenium which is my tool of choice.


I am a software tester with no programming skills (and I'm not even very tech savvy). My role in our small company is to manually test web apps under development and automate regression testing for updates to our products in production. LeapTest has been fantastic for regression testing. It is very simple to use and not once have I had to ask a programmer for assistance. I am currently investigating how to integrate LeapTest into our Dev stream. Once we have Dev, QA, Staging, and Prod environments setup, I think we can use LeapTest open API to automate Dev work. I will likely need a little help with the integration, but I have found LeapTest support to extremely responsive, helpful, and patient.


I'm using LeapTest for about two years and did successful integration in Dev cycles with use of Jenkins CI. It is flexible enough to create and organize your test scripts and utilities strong as required. If you go with bad approach, the tool chosen doesn't matter much. Cons that I found from my experience with the tool are:

  1. Bad debugging capabilities

  2. Database unit has very basic capabilities - no multiple queries

  3. No script execution( workaround - WIN cmd, powershell support)
  4. Javascript unit - no external library references.

If you're interested about the complete solution, you can contact me on skype: kvazimodu. I would be glad to share experience

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.