Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Qt Squish vs Selenium HQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Qt Squish
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (9th)
Selenium HQ
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
110
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (4th), Regression Testing Tools (4th)
 

Featured Reviews

Luc Vangrunderbeeck - PeerSpot reviewer
Testing solution supports Java testing with good reliability
There is nothing you can do for almost every application. If you do it for a single version, it is rather easy. However, if you want to run it for different versions of the software, then you need the Qt version of Java. You need to set up some special environment variables to be able to do that.
Abhishek-Tiwari - PeerSpot reviewer
An open-source solution that has significantly reduced costs for the company
One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing. For example, if there is a webpage where we need to upload some documents or emails in the webpage and I want to automate that scenario with the help of Selenium, it will not be possible. I can not upload any documents because when I am clicking on the browser the Windows pop up will appear. It would be beneficial if Selenium HQ would develop integrated plugins, and inbuilt features, which would help us to automate Windows based applications. With the help of other third party plugins, like AutoIt, Robot Class, or Sikuli we can integrate Windows based applications. Another limitation of Selenium HQ is that we can not automate the capture part. EML processing is not available in Selenium, particularly if a website requires some capture kind of validations before logging into the application. To overcome this situation, we can disable the capture part from the application side, so we can get access to the database directly.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"I like the dashboard. It's virtual, and you can see the customer results. I can do it at night and in the morning. I think it also automatically emails results."
"I can perform Java SWT."
"Squish is integrated with Qt, which enables us to test the user interface effectively."
"This product can work with QT applications and cross-cut from them on Windows or Mac."
"froglogic Squish is one of the most desired solutions if you are having a Qt as a framework and if you are looking at GUI regression testing. froglogic is a part of Qt as a company."
"It is very stable."
"I find it very user-friendly and easy to start working with. The main benefit for me is that it allows testing applications developed in the Qt language. This capability makes Squish a game-changer, as it's the only tool I've found that enables automation for applications written in Qt. I appreciate three main aspects. Firstly, the documentation is excellent. Secondly, I value the way the tool efficiently locates elements during testing. These are the two aspects I particularly like."
"The initial setup process is straightforward."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"It's not too complicated to implement."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
 

Cons

"The price could be better."
"We encountered issues with the embedded environment and building for the Qt version."
"You need to set up some special environment variables."
"Support isn't always helpful. I sometimes need to find solutions myself."
"The platform could be improved by implementing some basic functionalities that are frequently used, such as login procedures and screen handling when multiple screens are used at the workplace."
"There had been a lot of improvements with froglogic Squish already. There were some scenarios in which this particular solution was available in different flavors. They have pulled everything together in one solution. There were some monitoring systems, which were missing out from the solution earlier. They have a centralized dashboard for monitoring the test cases and their execution. It's a full-blown solution, there are not many glitches in terms of something missing out of the package."
"ID could be improved with suggestions of names, variables or class."
"I'm relatively new to Squish, so I'm not familiar with all its pros and cons. Currently, I haven't identified any specific improvements. However, one feature I miss is Git integration within the tool. In my previous experience with Selenium and Python in PyCharm, it was straightforward to create and review changes before pushing them. I haven't found a similar option in Squish, and having an integrated tool for managing conflicts would be beneficial in certain scenarios where collaboration is involved."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"In the future, Selenium should be able to automate desktop-based applications, as it is not currently able to handle non-web-based, Windows-based applications."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"Shadow DOM could be improved and the handling of single page applications. Right now, it's a bit complicated and there are a lot of additional scripts required if you want to handle a single page application in a neat way."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price could be better. I believe each developer license costs about 6000 or 7000 Euros per year."
"The platform is highly-priced."
"It is expensive."
"The solution is open-source, so it is 100% free with no hidden charges."
"Selenium HQ is open source and our use of it in our company is provided for free."
"Since it is an open source. It is free to use. However my company see it as the future of load testing."
"This is an open-source product that can be used free of charge."
"This is an open-source product so there is no cost other than manpower."
"It is an open-source product, it is free for anyone to use."
"Selenium is open-source, so there are no setup costs associated with it."
"The solution is open source."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Regression Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
832,138 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
21%
Computer Software Company
18%
Healthcare Company
7%
Transportation Company
7%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for froglogic Squish?
Qt and Squish are considered to be on the expensive side compared to other software development tools. The pricing is not very flexible, which has been noted as a concern.
What needs improvement with froglogic Squish?
We encountered issues with the embedded environment and building for the Qt version. Upgrading Qt and Squish can be annoying and would be better if Squish were more integrated with Qt, to ease the ...
What is your primary use case for froglogic Squish?
We use Qt Squish primarily for test automation in our embedded systems. While I configure it and set it up, another person uses it for testing. We also use Squish integrated with Qt, a framework fo...
How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
Selenium is easy to install and mostly free, so there's no need for a license. This lack of costs makes it an attractive option.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

froglogic Squish
SeleniumHQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Google, Nokia, Pfizer, Siemens, Synopsys, Airbus, Boeing, Mercedes Benz, Disney, Shell, Reuters, Vodafone, XILINX, GE, Ericsson
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Find out what your peers are saying about Qt Squish vs. Selenium HQ and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
832,138 professionals have used our research since 2012.