We performed a comparison between Bitbar and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits."
"I believe Selenium HQ to be the best solution in the market for automating web applications"
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more."
"It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"The initial setup was difficult."
Earn 20 points
Bitbar is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Bitbar writes "It's helped me when I've been short of devices and want to test whether the application will work on a specific device or not". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, Sauce Labs, CrossBrowserTesting and LambdaTest, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA). See our Bitbar vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.