We performed a comparison between Catchpoint and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Nexthink, Lakeside Software, ControlUp and others in Digital Experience Monitoring (DEM)."The most valuable features of Catchpoint are basically the transaction monitors on the API and UI."
"Catchpoint is very flexible and also provides logs for troubleshooting purposes. It helps us fix issues within the SLAs signed with the end users. The tool is easy to learn."
"The best feature in Catchpoint is the alert or the notification my company gets frequently, in particular, every five minutes. It's the notification you get whenever a respective market has an issue. There's also a dashboard in Catchpoint that shows the markets you support, so all the markets will be highlighted graphically in the dashboard whenever there's downtime that could affect you. If there's no issue for a specific market, it will be in green, so in this way, anybody would be able to understand which market has issues and which market has no issues through Catchpoint. The tool is very useful for monitoring activities."
"Catchpoint's customer service and support are valuable."
"The drill-down feature of this product was very good. It allowed us to identify the exact page or area of the site that was causing our customers an issue."
"The solution offers three different ways of slicing data to look for abnormalities."
"We really need the API monitoring, as well as client side session monitoring, the global synthetic monitoring, to track the availability of the systems from the customer side."
"Catchpoint provides a great amount of information."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"It is a good automation tool."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"A room for improvement in Catchpoint is that it lacks an automated page updating feature. My company receives all the alerts and notifications it needs, but the page doesn't update automatically. You need to manually refresh the page, so every five minutes you need to refresh it to see the most updated information. If there's an automated page refresh feature, that would help my company. It's a feature that Grafana has. The page auto-refreshes in Grafana, so you don't have to manually refresh the page. If that feature is implemented in Catchpoint, it'll be useful for the users. Another area for improvement in the tool is you have to do a manual task, for example, when you have a notification for a market, you get a zip code that the user could have entered, but if the zip code is incorrect, you have to manually go into Catchpoint and update that parameter, so that manual step is another area in the tool that needs improvement."
"Trending needs improvement. Currently, out-of-the-box, they provide only seven days availability. So, we have to do queries and we have to go into a separate analysis module, we have to run lot of queries to long-term trends."
"We would like the script creation feature of this solution to be improved, as it currently requires a complicated manual process to update the scripts."
"if we need to do performance analysis, we have to click too many times. For example, if there is an issue that is caught by Catchpoint, we need to understand what the error is and at which step it failed, or which transaction that is impacted. To drill down, we have to click too many things to get the answer."
"The old user version was better, it was more user-friendly."
"A large selection of nodes are available but it is a challenge to test reliably in China and the Middle East."
"There are essentially a lot of quotas. Nobody wants to sit and manually create monitors for someone who uses synthetic monitoring."
"There's still too much manual involvement in getting customized test configurations out there. It's good, but it still takes a lot of effort. In other words, it's when you need to configure it to collect a specific variable and that kind of thing."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
"We do not have enough resources or enough people to employ and hire. So, I'm hiring whoever I find, and they don't always have enough technical knowledge to operate Selenium."
"The reporting part can be better."
Catchpoint is ranked 5th in Digital Experience Monitoring (DEM) with 12 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. Catchpoint is rated 8.2, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Catchpoint writes "The UI is well designed, so it's easy to get the visibility you want". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". Catchpoint is most compared with Dynatrace, ThousandEyes, Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security and New Relic, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA).
We monitor all Digital Experience Monitoring (DEM) 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.