Selenium HQ Reviews

Selenium HQ is an automation tool for automating applications. 

Selenium HQ is primarily used for smoke tests, and its excellent stability allows such tests to be executed seamlessly. The solution helps in regression tests where certain scenarios need to be repeatedly set. Manual processing of regression tests is highly time-consuming, but using Selenium HQ can reduce the time effectively.  

I believe Selenium HQ to be the best solution in the market for automating web applications.

There are some synchronization issues with Selenium HQ; often, the solution is unable to match the browser speed, which has led to poor results. Some mechanisms should be added to Selenium HQ to improve synchronization. 

It's an open-source solution with regular updates, but previously, in the 3.14.0 version at our company, we had to setup the ChromeDrivers, but in the latest feature, it wasn't necessary as the solution got easily integrated into the cloud. 

I have been using Selenium HQ for two to three years. 

I will rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. At our organization we have a team of five or six people who are using Selenium HQ for automation. The maintenance of the product is always costly and time-consuming. It's very difficult for anybody to understand the code in business logic for a third party, so in our company, we need to share our knowledge with the maintenance professional first. 

To know about any updates on Selenium HQ I use search engines like Google and then update my Selenium HQ version accordingly. 

It's an effortless process to setup Selenium HQ. As part of the installation process, the dependencies need to be downloaded and pasted into the XML file for auto-execution. The installation of the solution can be completed in a few seconds. 

In our organization, we use Atlas for IDE and Maven for Eclipse to copy the dependencies from the cloud, and the rest of the testing process is setup using a test engine. 

For testing web applications using Selenium HQ, the panel application and test synchronization features have proven the most beneficial. Selenium HQ supports almost every project browser, like Edge, Firefox, and Chromium, for testing automation. I would definitely recommend Selenium HQ to others, it's a robust product for automating applications. 

I would rate Selenium HQ as nine out of ten. 

We use Selenium HQ for the web application we developed here.

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.

Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things.

It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing.

I have only been with my current company for a short time. It has not been a long time since I have been working with Selenium HQ.

We worked with the open-source version of Selenium HQ.

Selenium HQ is a stable solution.

Selenium HQ is scalable.

There are approximately ten people who are automation engineers from level one to level four using this solution.

We have community support because it is open-source. There is no paid or dedicated support.

We're just getting started with Katalon, and it's our first time using it.

The initial setup is very simple.

Maintenance is required. 

The scripts we must maintain require a significant amount of upkeep.

It was open-source.

It's a free solution, we don't pay for anything.

It is an open-source product, it is free for anyone to use.

We were doing a proof of concept to see which tools we could start using for our team.

If it is not a large project or application, Selenium HQ is a good choice; however, if the application is large and you want to maximize coverage, I believe you should look into tools like Katalon or Ranorex, or something that allows you to do more scripting with less coding.

I would rate Selenium HQ a seven out of ten.

I'm currently working on automation testing using Selenium and Cucumber. 

I am using it with Java, not with as a standalone implementation. It's Selenium with Cucumber and with TestNG.

It's a dependency that I am using from SeleniumHQ. It's a couple of components.

We primarily use it for automation testing. 

The standard features are good, and I use them a lot. The framework for testing is robust with Selenium.

The integration with TestNG and Gherkin with Cucumber is great. Gherkin is a language for using for testing.

The solution is stable.

You can scale the product.

There is a supportive community around it. 

It would be awesome if there was a standalone implementation of Selenium for non-developer users. For example, for business users. If a business wants to test something and doesn't have the knowledge of coding and programming, they should still be able to.

They should offer a single setup. By that, I mean software that you don't need to set up component by component. They should make up a setup file that puts all software together in the place that it should be and it works.

I've been using the solution for six months. 

Selenium is a mature and stable software. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

Selenium is not so scalable. It's not like other software. There are a couple of dependencies where you can make it grow or shrink depending on your needs. In general, it's okay.

I haven't used support a lot. I have researched a couple of posts in the community. I've done no more than that.

The initial setup was not quite so complex and also not simple. I tried it in Eclipse, and it didn't work quite well, and then I tried it in IntelliJ. I need to look further into it if either can be used with Selenium. I didn't use it with Eclipse. I used it with IntelliJ. With IntelliJ, the implementation was pretty straightforward, pretty simple. However, with Eclipse, it's not.

We are customers. 

I'd advise users to take advantage of community posts. If the person finds any trouble, Google it. Probably someone already has found the same issue and also has found the solution or the workaround for it.

In general, I have no complaints about this product. I would rate it nine out of ten.

We use the product for mobile and API testing purposes.

Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies. We can combine it with APM for mobile, API, and web testing.

They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps. Additionally, they could add more customization features for reporting.

We have been using Selenium HQ as partners for nine years.

The product is stable. However, it is impacted by the changes in UI. I rate the stability a seven out of ten.

We manage Selenium HQ for 20 customers. It is a scalable product and suitable for small to medium enterprises. It needs improvement in terms of supporting Windows devices.

I rate the scalability a seven or eight.

It is an open-source solution, and thus, we do not receive direct support services. We refer to relevant documentation and community articles to resolve most issues.

The initial setup for mobile app testing, especially when installing simulators, is complicated. Configuring simulators for Android and iOS platforms is time-consuming due to trial and error. Setting it up for mobile automation takes approximately one to two weeks. However, for web automation, the process is comparatively straightforward. It takes less than an hour to complete.

I rate the process a seven out of ten.

It is an open-source solution.

It's crucial for technicians to thoroughly evaluate whether the solution aligns with the end-to-end application needs, especially considering the complexity of enterprise applications. For leveraging features like ERP integration or mobile testing, it is better to understand the compatibility and support for specific devices.

I rate Selenium HQ a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for normal regression tests.

I like most of it. It is possible to get a lot of help and find help on the internet since Selenium is so widespread and established. The documentation is great.  There is  a lot of help on websites like Stack Overflow.

It is very stable.

The product is open-source. 

We are thinking about codeless automation, like what ACCELQ offers. They could maybe release a similar product that would be a codeless product.

The initial setup was difficult. 

It would be nice to have it on the cloud, like ACCELQ. That way, we don't need to set up it ourselves and don't need hardware for that. That would also allow for many people at many subsidiaries or locations to work simultaneously with it.

I'd like the possibility of automatically checking the installed browser version and automatically downloading the Selenium driver that suits the installed browser. Otherwise, you have to download and set up it manually, and if you get a new browser version, you have to do it every time, and it's time-consuming.

We've been using the solution for one year. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

Of course, you need a lot of time to optimize your scripts so that they run stable.

This is not really scalable. 

If you consider load tests or multi-thread testing, you need very powerful hardware to start several browsers. That's why in this aspect, not very scalable if you run tests in parallel.

We just have two people leveraging the solution right now. They use it regularly, on a daily basis. 

There is a lot of documentation and general product knowledge online. We don't have direct support contact as it is an open-source solution. 

We did previously use Eggplant. It's not open-source. It's actually pretty expensive. 

One benefit of Eggplant was testing mobile apps. Also, you don't find so much information on Stack Overflow or on the internet about Eggplant; they have good support.

It was not very easy to set up. 

We needed to add a lot of plugins like TestNG and Maven. The whole configuration was not very easy. I am not sure if it is the Selenium setup or just the whole system setup.

The solution is open-source and free to use. 

I'm an end-user. 

The solution is okay, however, you need to use it together with the TestNG and with Maven and use different plugins that improve it.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Our team primarily uses Selenium for web testing. It is useful for functional and regression testing. Although I am now managing a team and do not use any tools myself, my team works with several tools, including Selenium, Appium, KrayMaster, the Google Search tool, Postman, and Katalon Studio.

Using Selenium helps save money as it is an open-source tool. However, writing the code can be difficult and requires skilled personnel.

Selenium is a valuable tool for web testing, and it integrates easily with frameworks like the Gauge framework, making it easier than others. It supports different programming languages, including Java and JavaScript.

The most significant issue with Selenium is its difficulty in adapting to changing locators, which can hinder testing. Additionally, writing code can be challenging, especially for beginners.

I have been working with Selenium for about seven years.

While deploying and using Selenium, integrating frameworks and maintaining backups separately are areas that require more manual handling.

There is no need to contact the technical support team directly as there are many resources available online. Many people share solutions to common problems, so issues can often be resolved independently.

Neutral

Some colleagues argue that Cypress or Playwright might be better than Selenium, but we continue to use Selenium with the Gauge Framework.

As an open-source tool, Selenium does not have direct costs, but coding can be money-intensive because it is challenging.

Cypress and Playwright were considered by some colleagues as alternatives.

I mentioned that solving the issue of adapting to changing locators would significantly improve Selenium, potentially increasing its rating. Additionally, one can utilize web portals and AI to assist with problems.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

We use Selenium HQ for the automation of functional test cases.

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.  

When we upgrade the version, some features are missing. I want the product to include some AI capabilities. 

I have been using the product for 11 years. 

Selenium HQ is very stable. 

The solution is scalable, and we have around 9,000 users for the product. 

The tool's support is good, and they resolve issues nicely. 

Positive

I have been using the open-source version. 

You need to be aware of Selenium HQ's architecture. I rate it a ten out of ten. 

The solution is for front-end testing. It is mainly a testing tool.

There is nothing I cannot do with Selenium. It's very good in terms of features.

The recent changes they've added have been positive. 

The back-end integration and backend web driver supports are great. We integrate with Jira Confluence, Bitbucket, and Jenkins. There is no issue at all.

It has great Dev tools.

The Chrome debugging protocol has been helpful.

We found the initial setup to be straightforward. 

The solution is stable.

It's quite scalable. 

This is an open-source solution that is free to use. 

It supports multiple languages. Many of my friends are working with Selenium with Python language. I am working in Java. People are working in Javascript also. Some people work in this Ruby, C#, et cetera. 

In my previous company, I was using Selenium in my MacBook Air. They could handle iOS with no problem or Windows. It supports different operating systems and multiple browsers. 

It's really not lacking in features at this time. 

We'd like to have more support for Windows applications. 

There's no in-built reporting available. They should work on their reporting functionality. 

I've used the solution for five and a half years. 

It's a pretty stable product. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It is scalable. I have made many changes, and it is always scalable. It is adaptive, actually. Whatever I do on it, I can adjust. It is scalable.

We have maybe ten people using the solution right now.

We use it daily. 

Whenever we Google issues, we find it easy to find answers. 

We've found support to be good.

I've also used Appium in the past.

The solution offers a very easy initial setup. It's not overly complicated or difficult. Compared to Appium, for example, it's much easier. 

I'd rate the ease of implementation five out of five. 

The product is free to use and open-source. 

The framework and the language should be defined early if a new user plans to take this solution on long-term. It helps to have that figured out so you can implement it correctly. A few years back, I started with Java, however, given the choice, I would have preferred Python.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.