We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Testim 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 primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"Data parametrization and parallelization are the most important features in any automation tool."
"Selenium HQ lets you create your customized functions with whatever language you want to use, like Python, Java, .NET, etc. You can integrate with Selenium and write."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"The product is easy to use."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"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."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Testim is ranked 17th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Testim is rated 9.2. 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 Testim writes "A stable tool to help users take care of the implementation phases in their environment". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test, whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Functionize, Testsigma and Ranorex Studio. See our Selenium HQ vs. Testim report.
See our list of best Functional 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.