We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Telerik Test Studio 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."The stability and performance are good."
"The tool is easy to use and log in with respect to other tools. It is open-source. We can customize the product. I also like its security."
"Data parametrization and parallelization are the most important features in any automation tool."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"One drawback to Selenium is that there is nothing like an object repository, such as that found in QTP, especially considering continuous integration practices that have become common nowadays."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"It takes such a long time to use this solution that it may be worth looking into other free solutions such as TestProject or Katalon Studio, or paid solutions to replace it."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Telerik Test Studio is ranked 18th in Functional Testing Tools with 5 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Telerik Test Studio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Telerik Test Studio writes "Very good performance and load testing capabilities". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, OpenText Silk Test and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Telerik Test Studio is most compared with Ranorex Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca and Visual Studio Test Professional. See our Selenium HQ vs. Telerik Test Studio report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression 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.