Selenium HQ Reviews

My customer previously validated every file and it would take almost 15-20 minutes for a document. They used to randomly select and test only 100 out of the thousands, maybe 85,000, files, to pick up sampling. Each file would take around 20 to 25 minutes, so we were not able to do it manually, but with the help of Selenium, we were able to test all the files in two days. It saves a lot of time.

Selenium HQ is open source, which is one thing that I like about it. Whatever you want to find, it's already there. If you'd like to add some features, you can. You can also contribute to it. Whatever problems we face, we can go and add. It is most like Eggplant, which is a paid tool, but here we don't have to pay for anything.

In terms of what could be improved, there are some glitches with it, but whenever you report it, the open source community works on it and fixes it. There is no support here. If I say in the user community that it's not working, I have to go and check Openstack and extract questions and answers from the community. There is not any company that is supporting it that could help me. There is no particular documentation about it that can help me in a technical way. I would have to see people's user experience and see what they have done in such and such scenarios.

Sometimes we face challenges with Selenium HQ. There are third party tools that we use, for example for reading the images. They are not easy to plug in. The third party add-ons are difficult to get good configuration and do not have good support. I would like to see better integration with other products.

In the next release, I would like OCR, image recognition, to be built-in. Sometimes there are no code elements that are detectable so finding x paths is tough. Whenever there are some challenges here, we could use OCR or something similar, with good image recognition.

I have been using Selenium HQ for the last couple of months.

Selenium HQ's scalability depends on the modularity of the product. Our product was more modular. When we made the product testable for one document, we were able to test 20,000 documents with it. So the scalability was quite impressive.

We have three people in the testing team who are using it.

We are considering expanding usage. Since it has reduced the business time, there are new scenarios that other business teams were using it for. So they asked us to include those scenarios as well, reducing the time.

There is no tech support because it's open source in Selenium.

You just have to raise the bugs in the community and if someone has time, they can fix it. So it's not so quick.

The initial setup was straight forward. We don't use it in deployment, we just use Selenium for testing in our organization. The code which was deployed was tested before.

There are four developers in my team who are working on it.

It was not a Selenium deployment because the deployment was of code, and we only use Selenium for testing purposes. We did not deploy with Selenium code anywhere on production.

In terms of pricing, it is open source, so we don't have to pay anything for Selenium.

My advice to anyone considering using Selenium is that using their libraries is good but the focus should be on finding the elements. Element location is a tough part. There are plugins that are available so don't waste time creating your own locators. You can use ready-made built-in solutions that would reduce your time a lot.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Selenium HQ a six.

We use Selenium HQ for web automation. We are using C Sharp for development.

Using Selenium HQ helps us by executing tests quickly. It saves us time and reduces the need for manual testing of repetitive tasks, thereby reducing efforts.

The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are that it is free and allows using any programming language. Additionally, it supports different frameworks that are suitable for various projects.

There is a challenge with concurrent testing, where parallelization is not fully supported. Sequential tests depending on each other cannot be executed in parallel. This feature could be improved.

I have been using the solution for more than two years.

The stability of the product is good. There are no major issues.

The scalability rating would be around a seven to eight out of ten. There are still challenges with parallelization and testing.

There is enough help available online. Simple questions and repetitive tasks have a lot of available resources. However, finding help for customized scenarios can be challenging.

Positive

The setup process was simple. I managed to complete it by myself.

There are many products that depend on Selenium HQ. Protractor is one of them.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We employ the version of the solution with the most ease of use, based on a search we conducted five or six years back. We now have a new client who likes the approach we used with a different one. We have a script to download the latest version, integrate it with the regression suite and then run it. Our current and previous clients equally approve of this approach. We make certain to utilize the latest version even when conducting tests during the development stage, as we find it easy to work with.

Remote server execution is a feature we find most valuable. We make use of Selenium Grid as concerns parallel execution. We also find the ordinary features of Selenium Grid to be valuable, 90 percent of our purchases comprising UI and 10 percent back-end.

In the past, we had difficulty with screenshots, but this has been remedied. We feel that all the current solutions are usable and the providers are helpful.

This said, the login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ. It would be nice if the solution provided an internal login system, one which would allow us to easily debug it. Until such time as a login system will be added from the vendor application, it will not be possible to identify the exact cause of a potential failure, unless there should be an interaction with, say, the UI element. Selenium HQ currently allows for an exception should an element be stale, not be found, or intractable. 

We have been using Selenium HQ since 2007.

The solution is very stable. I always suggest Selenium, even when conducting internal training. As I consider this to be a better solution than that offered by the competition and one which works, I do the same with my team. I always advocate on behalf of the ease of integration of Selenium HQ.

We have not made use of Selenium HQ’s technical support. We belong to a forum site that we joined some time ago while looking for help in finding an integration solution on the pipeline side. We were able to obtain all the information we needed from the Selenium HQ forum. Meaning, there was no need to contact anyone else with our frequent questions.

The initial setup of the deployment cycle and the process of onboarding users takes an average of 10-15 minutes. This is the length of time it takes for us to set up in our pipeline the data repositories for the regression suite, and, subsequently, integrate the data with Selenium HQ, which is the point at which we run it.

We implement the solution for our clients, not simply resell it.

The solution is very easy to implement. The first step which must be done is to go through the documentation on the site. I feel the solution to be pretty straightforward and people are drawn to it by its ease of use. There is always help available on the web for integration or implementation issues.

I rate Selenium HQ as an eight out of ten.

We primarily have been using Selenium WebDriver for functional and regression testing of our business management platform. 

Our technology stack includes Apache HTTP, Tomcat, PostgreSQL, CentOS, Java, J2EE, JavaScript, and Eclipse. Plus, we are using Selenium WebDrivers and TestNG for testing with Firefox and Chrome. 

Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. However, we have been using Selenium to automate our testing process since day one. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run. We plan to further optimize it and bring this duration down to about 12 hours.

We plan to integrate Selenium with JMeter for performance testing, too. 

WebDriver and Grid: Without these, we would have been nowhere so far. The shear size of team/software license required to accomplish this humongous task would have thrown us out of business. 

Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%. Introduction of FluentWait has improved things, but it does not work in all scenarios 

In the beginning, we had issues with several test cases failing during regression. Over a period of time, we built our own framework around Selenium which helped us overcome of these issues. 

I have had experience with Rational tools in the past, but with DWA Commerce, we wanted to go the open source route. 

We have had extensive experience in testing and have pretty much worked with most testing solutions. Therefore, we did not have to go in for a re-evaluation. Our choice was clear. 

Just go for it. 

• Support for UI Automation
• Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems
• Multiple browser support
• Selenium Grid supports the execution of test case in distributed way

• It's open-source, so there's no need to pay for a license
• Support different programming language hence DevOps and QA work together to built better test suite
• Since it is a lightweight tool, hence it helps in running test cases fast

There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support.

I've been using it for five years.

There were no issues with the deployment.

There have been no issues with the stability.

There have been no issues with the scalability.

I have used Silk Test and QTP before using Selenium. The reason for choosing the product can be found in answer 4 and 5.

I used SilkTest and QTP before using Selenium

It was easy to set-up.

We did it in-house one, you choose the solution which best suite your needs. Don’t spend to much time in building robust solution unless it is really required.

I have invested my time in learning the tool and got good recognition for creating automation framework. It can continue to run as open source tool.

You just need to choose the solution which best suites for you.

We are using Selenium for web test automation.

We are saving time with regression testing by using test automation.  

Selenium is also open source, so now we are integrating all our automation tests into the full pipeline. 

Selenium is very famous. Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community. This is the power of Selenium. Whatever you need, whatever your question, you will find an answer.

The initial setup is easy.

You can integrate the solution with pretty much anything.

It's open-source and free to use.

Maybe they could improve the record and play plugin for element detection. That would be ideal. If they could build some tools above Selenium for that, I'd find it helpful. People sometimes do not have that much technical knowledge, and having something more plug-and-play would be appealing.

We have many plans in our pipeline that still need to be implemented. Maybe we will find that we need some features that need to be integrated with Selenium, for example, for a multi-browser or for implementing many machines. We haven't fully implemented this solution yet.

The drawback is the solution is not easy to learn. You need resources and technical knowledge and have to deal with the maintenance of script changes. 

While it works well with Chrome, if you use it with other browsers, you may have issues. 

I've been using the solution for three or four years. 

We've never had any stability issues. It's reliable. The performance is good. It doesn't crash or freeze.

It is scalable. It's easy to expand. 

We have about 15 people working on the solution. 

I've never spoken to technical support per se. We tend to get help via the community if we have questions. It is quite robust and there is a lot of information about all kinds of issues publicly available. 

I have used other tools as well. Each tool has its own pros and cons. Each organization also has its own unique needs. There are budgets, resources, and other factors that would come into play as well.

The solution isn't difficult to set up. It's quite straightforward. 

I'd rate the ease of setup eight out of ten. 

I cannot recall exactly how long the deployment itself took. 

Sometimes there may be some maintenance required around upgrades. You would need to check the compatibility between the software, for example. That said, the maintenance requirements are pretty low. It's not complex to maintain the product. 

We handled the implementation ourselves, in-house. 

This is an open-source solution, which is a very positive benefit. 

I'd rate the solution six out of ten. It's not an out-of-the-box solution like Oracle or SAP. 

We mainly use HQ for UI automation and some of the main functions of test cases. We are customers of Selenium. 

The best thing about the product is that it is open-source and free, which is why we opted for it. It's also customizable which is great for us. There is a lot of online assistance available in forums and support on the Stack overflow. HQ is continually updated and supported by Selenium. You can write your own scripts without needing to depend on what's already there. The UI is automation friendly. When there's a slow network and an older application, the waves get very flaky and Selenium can handle that. Setting up and working with Chrome and Firefox is easy on Selenium.

The solution is intended for browser automation so it's not a support testing tool and there are no features. I'd like to see some flavors of test case management available that don't require any additions and there could be some improvement in the fluid-based area as well. Selenium is meant for developers but QA people cannot write test cases very easily on it. If you don't have a development background, it's tough. 

I've been using this solution for eight years. 

We had a few stability issues initially but it's very stable now.

The product is scalable. We have around 40 to 50 QA users in the company. 

We reported a few bugs on Selenium and they were resolved. The support was mediocre. Because it's open source there's not much support available.

The initial setup is easy but it requires certain development skills to set up. Without that, it's not easy. The difficulty is in creating a framework and that requires thinking about the maintainability and scalability aspects.

We went with Selenium for several reasons; it's open source and free, they provide a lot of support, and we can use Java technology which Selenium has available. Other tools generally don't provide perpetual licenses.

It's important to get hands-on experience with the program. I would also suggest getting your frame pyramid in order. You need to decide on the language you're going to use and have that programming language support in your organization and decide which other tools you're going to use. Also, think of your application and whether Selenium is the appropriate solution.  

This is the most widely used tool throughout the world in this space. It has so much support available and is a benchmark for other tools so I rate the solution eight out of 10.

We use the solution for the test automation of web solutions. It also helps us to create web browsers.  

My company uses the solution for critical deployments. 

I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website. 

I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard. 

I have been using the tool for five years. 

The tool is stable but needs to update to the new version of Chrome. 

I would rate the product's scalability an eight out of ten. My company has 2000 users for the solution.

I have never used support. I would search on the internet for tutorials. 

The solution's setup is easy in the local environment but complex on the server side. You need to also update the Chrome version in the cloud before setting it up in the local environment. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. The product is easy to use.