Asri Maspupah, Akhmad Bakhrun


Regression testing as an essential activity in software development that has changed requirements. In practice, regression testing requires a lot of time so that an optimal strategy is needed. One approach that can be used to speed up execution time is the Regression Test Selection (RTS) approach. Currently, practitioners and academics have started to think about developing tools to optimize the process of implementing regression testing. Among them, STARTS and Ekstazi are the most popular regression testing tools among academics in running test case selection algorithms. This article discusses the comparison of the capabilities of the STARTS and Ekstazi features by using feature parameter evaluation. Both tools were tested with the same input data in the form of System Under Test (SUT) and test cases. The parameters used in the tool comparisons are platform technology, test case selection, functionality, usability and performance efficiency, the advantages, and disadvantages of the tool. he results of the trial show the differences and similarities between the features of STARTS and Ekstazi, so that it can be used by practitioners to take advantage of tools in the implementation of regression testing that suit their needs. In addition, experimental results show that the use of Ekstazi is more precise in sorting out important test cases and is more efficient, when compared to STARTS and regression testing with retest all.

Full Text:



Ali, N. bin et al. (2019) On the search for industry-relevant regression testing research, Empirical Software Engineering. doi: 10.1007/s10664-018-9670-1.

Ansari, A. et al. (2016) ‘Optimized Regression Test Using Test Case Prioritization’, Procedia Computer Science, 79, pp. 152–160. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2016.03.020.

Churm, T. (2017) An Introduction To Website Usability Testing, Usability Geek, [online]. Available at: (Accessed: 28 November 2020).

Edgar, T. W. and Cyber, S. (2017) ‘About the Authors’, Research Methods for Cyber Security, p. xv. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-805349-2.00020-0.

Engström, E. and Runeson, P. (2010) ‘A qualitative survey of regression testing practices’, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 6156 LNCS(June), pp. 3–16. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-13792-1_3.

Faizullah, S. and Almutairi, S. (2018) ‘Considerations for Regression Testing Process in Agile Development Environments’, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 8(1), p. 153. doi: 10.23956/ijarcsse.v8i1.565.

Gamido, H. V. and Gamido, M. V. (2019) ‘Comparative review of the features of automated software testing tools’, International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 9(5), pp. 4473–4478. doi: 10.11591/ijece.v9i5.pp4473-4478.

Gligoric, M., Eloussi, L. and Marinov, D. (2015) ‘Ekstazi: Lightweight Test Selection’, Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering, 2, pp. 713–716. doi: 10.1109/ICSE.2015.230.

Kannan, M; Lokeshwari, K. (2017) ‘Available Online at COMPARISON OF SOFTWARE TESTING TOOLS WITH RESPECT TO TOOLS’, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science, 8(0976).

Legunsen, O. et al. (2016) ‘An extensive study of static regression test selection in modern software evolution’, Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, 13-18-November-2016, pp. 583–594. doi: 10.1145/2950290.2950361.

Legunsen, O., Shi, A. and Marinov, D. (2017) ‘STARTS: STAtic regression test selection’, 32nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), 3(6), pp. 949–954.

Rana, K. and Yousuf, M. M. (2019) ‘Comparative Analysis of the Automated Penetration Testing Tools’, Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 5(10), pp. 585–591. Available at:

Rosero, R. H., Gómez, O. S. and Rodríguez, G. (2017) ‘An approach for regression testing of database applications in incremental development settings’, 6th International Conference on Software Process Improvement (CIMPS), pp. 1–4.

Sandin, E. V., Yassin, N. M. and Mohamad, R. (2016) ‘Comparative Evaluation of Automated Unit Testing Tool for PHP’, International Journal of Software Engineering and Technology, 3(2), pp. 7–11. Available at:

Satheesh, A. and Singh, M. (2017) ‘Comparative Study of Open Source Automated Web Testing Tools: Selenium and Sahi’, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 10(13), pp. 1–9. doi: 10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i13/109048.

Simanca, F. et al. (2019) ‘A Solution to Manage the Full Life Cycle of Learning Analytics in a Learning Management System: AnalyTIC’, IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, PP(c), p. 1. doi: 10.1109/RITA.2019.2950148.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2021 JTT (Jurnal Teknologi Terapan)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

View Stats


 Creative Common Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)