Selenium HQ Reviews

The primary use case for us is IntelliJ and IDEA.

The most valuable feature I have found is the bomb file and it is easy in its coding. It has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages.

I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack.

I have been using Selenium HQ for three years.

Selenium HQ is a stable solution.

Selenium HQ is definitely scalable.

Technical support consists of excellent documentation online.

Positive

The initial setup of Selenium HQ is straightforward.

Currently, Selenium HQ is free for customers.

I would rate Selenium HQ an eight out of ten.

We use it when you have a large number of scenarios to be tested manually, you would go for a web-based automation solution.

It is a good automation tool.

I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms.

I have been using Selenium HQ for the past five years.

I find Selenium HQ to be a stable product.

Selenium HQ is scalable for our needs.

Selenium HQ is not complex to work with.

We deployed in-house and it took between two to three weeks to complete.

The licensing pricing depends on the customer's needs.

It is a straightforward application to learn. If you know Java, it is something that can be easily learned and used. It has a lot of support out there. But again, it might not support some of the older back-end platforms. I would rate Selenium HQ an eight out of ten.

The main use case of Selenium HQ is for end-to-end automation of UI applications.

Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages.

An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM. I would also like better integration with applications like Salesforce.

I've worked with Selenium HQ for eight to nine years.

Selenium HQ is stable.

Selenium HQ is scalable - you can execute on multiple browsers in parallel.

Previously, I used UFT but switched to Selenium HQ as it's an open-source product while UFT is licensed.

The initial setup was straightforward, and deployment took five months.

We used an in-house team.

In order to use Selenium HQ comfortably, you need to be very strong on Java skills. I would give Selenium HQ a rating of seven out of ten.

We use it for test automation. We are also using Cypress for some of our automated tests. We've tried Selenium a little bit, but it depends on the project we are doing.

It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market.

I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more.

I have been using this solution for one year.

It is stable.

We have five people on the team, but not all of us are using it. We have plans to increase its usage.

It is not complex. I don't remember the time it took, but I do have development and testing experience. So, for me, it was an easy ramp-up.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate it a seven out of 10.

Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts.

I would like for the next release to support parallel testing.

We were using Micro Focus UFT which is for Windows application and used Selenium for web use. The two solutions are not comparable in my opinion because they both have their advantages and disadvantages.

The initial setup was straightforward. I was able to add the packages that I wanted and quickly get started with development in a day.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for automating a solution on the web and automating testing.

We are a testing company. We can automate testing using Selenium.

The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple. It's quite a user-friendly product.

The interface is great.

We've had good experiences dealing with support.

The pricing is fine.

Handling configurations is very good.

The stability has been good.

It's an easy product to set up and deploy.

If a company wants to scale it, it can. 

The product offers a free community edition. 

Selenium has problems with some objects. The objects are not in the squares of the screen. The layout can be a bit strange. It makes it hard to find objects.

We'd like to see some more image management in future releases. 

We've been using the solution for two years at this point. 

The stability is great. We haven't dealt with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance is good.

If you need to expand the solution, you can. We've never had an issue with scalability.

We have about seven people using the solution at this time. 

Technical support is great. They are helpful and responsive. We haven't had a problem with them.

The initial setup is not complex or hard to do. It's pretty simple and straightforward. A company shouldn't have any problem implementing it. 

We have found the pricing to be reasonable. It's not too high of a cost.

We are actually using the community edition, which is free. 

We are a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Selenium.

We have the solution deployed both on-premises and on the cloud. 

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with the product. 

Currently I am doing mobile application automation with Appium and Selenium, as well as front-end application automation with tools like WAVE for mobile and desktop applications. The only area that I'm not involved in at present is API testing, though I am hoping there will be opportunities to get to that as well in the future.

We typically use Selenium and Appium in automation and testing by first identifying which modules we are able to automate. Then, whenever we encounter some new course in the framework that we're using, and we need to use a hybrid kind of framework, we will use Selenium to resolve it. 

Selenium has improved the way we work because if you do what we need to do manually, you'll have to expend a lot of time. For example, it would be a huge chore to navigate through an application manually every day, and particularly if there's a new build on the way, you would have to check all the regulations over again by hand. That would simply take too much time, and so what Selenium does for us is that in one resource it can handle the work of three, four resources, provided that the scripts are straightforward and coded properly. That's the main cool thing about Selenium, I would say.

For me, the most valuable feature of Selenium lies in its ability to help us find elements quickly. Apart from that, the driver interface is really useful, too. When we implement the Selenium driver interface, we can easily navigate through all of the pages and sections of an app, including performing things like clicking, putting through SendKeys, scrolling down, tagging, and all the other actions we need to test for in an application.

One drawback to Selenium is that there is nothing like an object repository, such as that found in QTP, especially considering continuous integration practices that have become common nowadays. In future, if they can provide an object repository or some kind of repository for data, then that I would greatly appreciate it. For example, once you have the app credentials and all the other security data and you don't want to show them to other people who are not authorized, a repository for this kind of data would be very useful. You could then simply grant access to only those people who need it.

Another improvement I can think of is in the area of documentation and support. With Selenium, we're using freeware software, and because of this there is no support or anything from the vendor. In this case, you have to rely solely on your own coding experience and exposure to the tool, and you often have to search through many pages of code when you want to change something in your implementation. It also makes you rely on your problem-solving skills to a large degree, because some problems are not that easy to solve by yourself.

If I can compare Selenium with another solution such as SoapUI Pro, there's a big difference when it comes to coding your own solutions. With SoapUI Pro, if you want to fetch some data, you don't need to write any code or anything, and for someone with no coding experience, this makes it much easier to be able to use effectively. So, ultimately, more support for non-technical people would make for a great improvement in Selenium.

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

The stability of Selenium depends on the skill level of the team that is using it. If you are writing solid code for automating your scripts, then you will find that Selenium itself is a stable solution. But if you're writing sloppy code then you may find that Selenium slows down or becomes unstable. Truly, I think it all depends on the people who are using it, and how they approach the architecture of the framework.

I am hopeful that Selenium will scale well because, along with others nowadays, we plan to to move into cloud-based provisioning with continuous integration. We will be doing that with AWS, most likely.

I haven't taken any technical support till now because Selenium is freeware, and you will not be getting any technical support directly. So that could be something that they could work on because if they were able to provide support, it would great for us and many others. Without it, you can still add code to the Selenium software itself, but they won't be able to help you with it.

On the other hand, I do believe there is enough documentation online for anyone who wants to figure it out by themselves. There are videos, tutorials, and other resources available to us.

The setup of Selenium is easy, in my experience, since it is provided as JAR files that you can download. Apart from that, there is, I believe, an architectural approach where you can simply input your dependencies and it will automatically download all the JAR files needed, and other required files.

As for deploying the code, this is just as easy. For example, if you're working with some type of continuous integration, it's a breeze to deploy. First, you have to build up your framework, and then you can deploy it to Git, or GitHub, or anywhere you want. At this point it's just about uploading the code, so there's not much to it. 

I am currently implementing Selenium along with a few other tools. For example, for mobile device automation, I'm using Selenium with Appium. The Selenium architecture can be integrated with Appium in order to be able to automate with mobile devices such as Android and iOS, which is what I'm doing now. Beyond that, we also have desktop applications; for Windows we have EXE files and for Mac we have DMG files. With these, I have implemented the Windows application drivers using Selenium so that we're able to easily automate any Windows-based or Mac-based app.

As for the rest of the team who are implementing Selenium this way, we have about 15 people on the testing side of things, and 6 people in automation.

Selenium is free software so we do not pay licensing costs. 

My advice to others is that, first of all, you have to understand the process of automation from a general point of view, and how people get on with the coding and all that. If you only have manual experience, like a lot of new testers, then you likely don't have much experience in coding either. And in that case, my advice would be to first understand the logic of the process. For instance, before jumping into it from the deep end, try get a handle on a few small steps first, and as you go along you will learn the basic coding, the basic architecture, how Selenium works, how the automation process works, and so on.

Then, take a piece of code and ensure that it works as a standalone script, then finally jump into the framework. Develop from any framework, use it as best as possible, get some experience with it, and try to become an expert from there.

You can use any programming language you prefer. As for myself, I'm using Java, but you can use C#, Python, Ruby, PHP, etc. There's a lot of support for different programming languages with Selenium. 

My biggest lessons while using Selenium have had to do with automation and how it really works, which is something I've always been interested in. Once I get an application, any application whether it be a WAVE app or mobile app, I very much enjoy getting stuck into the automation part of testing. And what I've learned is that not everything is that easy to automate.

In many cases, I have had to team up with new solutions and play around with code on my own, which has been a great learning experience for me. Apart from that, with Selenium I have been able to implement new things such as OCR (Optical Character Recognition) which is useful when you are not able to find all the elements you need, and I feel good that I was personally able to enhance the automation process with what I have learned along the way.

I would rate Selenium HQ an eight out of ten. 

The system is SaaS, and we use it for web-based regression tests that are being done locally at an in-home office or in the company office.

What I like about Selenium HQ is that we wrote it ourselves. I think it's perfect. It's a framework that you can use to devise your own products, which is nice.

Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products.

I've been using Selenium for about a year now.

Selenium's stability is good.

Scalability has not been a problem for us.

We haven't really needed support. We write our own code, so if anything goes wrong, we can fix it.

Phil Ward:
Well, we set it up ourselves, so we knew what we were doing. Basically, the installation is ava-based, so you have to write Java code to get it working.

I would rate Selenium HQ nine out of 10. If someone is thinking about adopting Selenium HQ, I would encourage them to use it. However, you do need to be reasonably proficient in Java, C#, or C++.