Selenium HQ Reviews

We are using SeleniumHQ for automating the test scripts.

What I like the most is that it is fast. When comparing, it faster than HQ QTP.

It supports multiple processes, which is great.

Just by changing a line of code, it will work with multiple processes.

The locating of web elements is a complex process where you require the WebDriver application and create a locator by using  By Class. They are not always matching.

It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements.

Another negative point is that you cannot delete the application, you can only delete the web application.

I have been using this solution for six months.

This solution has been stable. We have not experienced any issues with bugs or glitches.

Selenium HQ does not offer proper support. As a free solution, it doesn't offer proper support. You have to search for some blogs.

The initial setup was fine. It didn't seem to be complex.

The difficulty was with the web interface and finding the objects. I have to inspect elements and this times time.

I am still in training but will improve in the next few months.

It's an open-source tool that you can work with at any time without any cost.

I am at the beginner's level, working alone to get some more practice. It will take some time to have more experience with this solution.

Micro Focus is more user-friendly, and they offer paid support.

I would rate this solution a 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.

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 are using Selenium HQ for automated UI testing of web applications.

The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google.

Selenium HQ can improve by creating an enterprise version where it can provide the infrastructure for running the tests. Currently, we need to run the test in our infrastructure because it's a free tool. If Google can start an enterprise subscription and they can provide us with the infrastructure, such as Google Cloud infrastructure where we can configure it, and we can run the test there, it would be highly beneficial.

I have been using Selenium HQ for approximately nine years.

Selenium HQ is highly stable.

The scalability of Selenium HQ is good.

We have approximately 10 testers that are using this solution.

The initial setup of Selenium HQ is very difficult. You need different configurations on your system, such as Java and you need to configure it. Additionally, you need to have some IDEs such as Eclipse or IntelliJ IDEA on your system. Selenium is supported in many languages, such as .NET, Java, Python, JavaScript, and C#. So, at least you must be knowing any one of these languages, then only you can use Selenium.

The solution requires coding experience to be able to implement.

The deployment does not take a lot of time. You can create a continuous integration pipeline with TeamCity or Jenkins, and then you can run tests.

Selenium HQ is a free and open-source solution and is supported by Google.

We evaluated Tricentis Tosca and it was expensive and Selenium HQ is free. This is why we choose Selenium HQ.

My advice to others is the first step to using Selenium HQ is to learn a programing language.

I rate Selenium HQ a nine out of ten.

It's a very stable tool and it's open-source, and there are new versions available. The new versions come quickly and frequently, you receive a successor version with bug fixes very easily. The tool is easy to use and highly configurable.

the primary use cases of this solution are UI regression testing and API automation testing.

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.

The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs.

I have been using the solution for four years.

This solution is the most stable product I have used when it comes to web automation.

This solution has no scalability limits.

The initial setup is easy, like a walk in the park for any user.

I implemented the solution in-house.

The solution is open source.

Before choosing the solution I evaluated Cypress and Postman. 

I give this solution nine out of ten.

When it comes to UI testing this solution is perfect but for API automation it lags behind compared to Postman.

Around 70 percent of our engineers use this solution on a daily basis.

Since the solution is open source you can create a user account on GitHub and receive free community-based technical support when it is required.

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. 

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. 

We use the solution to perform tests and robotic process automation.

The solution helps us improve and maintain a specific set of work quality. Also, it saves a lot of time for us.

The solution's core functionality is excellent.

They should add more functionality to the solution. Also, they should provide technical support services.

We have been using the solution for five years.

I rate the solution's stability a ten.

It is a scalable solution. I rate its scalability a ten. It is easy to deploy on any device.

I used Micro Focus UFT One earlier.

The solution's initial setup takes time. I rate the process as one. We require a specialist to download and install it manually. Later, we need to create a framework and set it for an automation process. The entire process is quite complicated for new users.

The solution is an open-source tool.

I recommend the solution to others. Its learning curve is very high for Java and comparatively less for Python. Apart from this, it is highly stable. A lot of documentation is available for it in case of any queries. I rate the solution a nine.