Selenium HQ Reviews

The primary use of this solution is UI testing.

This has improved our organization through the automation of UI test cases.

The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel.

Selenium HQ easily integrates with other dependencies.

I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers.

I have been using Selenium HQ for five years.

Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful.

Selenium IDE is able to record and playback. It was useful for me when I did not know coding. Selenium WebDriver has got packages which help in automating test cases.

The best part of Selenium WebDriver is that it supports multiple web browsers, thus, helping in cross-browser testing.

It is free to use and is not limited to any scripting language.

It has helped our organization as automating the test cases is much easier and faster now. It covers a wide range of test cases and in many browsers.

Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way.

I have been using it for six months now.

There were some stability issues with Selenium. Sometimes my tests were not stable.

I have scalability issues with Selenium.

I did not use any technical support other than the help from my colleagues.

I have used Tricentis Tosca before, but I find Selenium much better as it is an open source tool and free to use.

The initial setup wasn't easy as I didn't know what packages to use and which ones were useful for my project.

Pricing: It is free to use.

I would advise others to use Selenium WebDriver and to understand all the packages useful for their project.

It's free and continuously improved e.g. support for mobile, and new browsers. Also special services allow remote cross-browser testing on desktop and mobile browser (such as BrowserStack or SauceLabs).

Also the automation of Microsoft Edge is supported, where as other tools are having issues.

Regression tests for multiple browsers are now automated robustly across all main browsers.

• Video controls of an embedded HTML5 video
• AJAX/web 2.0 dynamic web content (though there is a framework called Protractor for Angular)
• Better detection if a page has indeed finished loading

I've used it for three years.

Never

Due to its high rate in releases sometimes working code cannot be executed after an upgrade due to a new feature or different behaviour.

Service is only available through a community (LinkedIn, Stackoverflow) but since this product is widely used you can always find a solution to your problem.

It was very straightforward, just one line of code, with two dependencies and you already have a browser up and running ready to be automated.

I made the concept and implementation myself.

No license necessary, but to get the best results it requires a Java Software Developer with WebDev-background and a tester attitude. Tests can be automated fairly quickly and across the main browsers therefore you can get results in less than a week.

Don’t forget the maintenance that is required to keep the framework running, therefore I would suggest the Page-Object-Model, to separate the test logic from the test object. Also you might wanna start on Chrome, it’s better supported.

Ranorex, Sahi, TestComplete, TestWhizz, QF-Test, WatiR, Squish, CodedUI

I use Selenium HQ to streamline our regression testing procedures and minimize the amount of manual testing required, we chose to automate our entire regression suite. This includes all of the flow cases, as well as various other test cases, such as those for UI testing and negative and false validation tests. We automated a wide range of test cases to maximize efficiency.

The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications.

I have been using Selenium HQ for approximately four years.

We have two people using this solution in my organization.

The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework.

I rate the initial setup of Selenium HQ a three out of ten.

I rate Selenium HQ a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case is for testing projects. We are a small startup company and each project has been assigned to test the web applications, elements, and identify the locators.

The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug.

The Appium screenshot is attached with a tool. If we could get a screenshot as soon as the test script is over that would let us know if the test has passed or failed that would be an improvement. I would like to see automatic logs generated. If it captures the log from the time we started the S-case until the driver is good. Whatever we are doing as manual intervention, should be avoided.

I have been using Selenium HQ for the past four months now.

The stability is excellent.

Selenium HQ is scalable, with more than one hundred developers and engineers using the product. They are test automation engineers.

I was using Appium previously.

The initial setup was straightforward and easy. The deployment time takes around two to three hours.

The setup cost is open source or free.

I would rate Selenium HQ an eight out of ten. Selenium HQ is good for a web testing application.

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.

My company started using Selenium HQ two years ago for unit testing. We were trying to evaluate the record and playback features. We are basically outsourcing this function, and we're charged for every developed feature and testing. So, we thought that we could test it ourselves using the record and playback feature. We were navigating our web application records in a macro and tried to reproduce that later. But for some reason, it's not the best solution for us.

I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output.

It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test.

I think we have been using Selenium HQ for two years, but I only joined the company six months ago.

We are satisfied with its stability.

We are satisfied with its scalability. We have five or six users working with Selenium HQ.

Selenium is an open-source solution, and It's free.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Selenium HQ a seven.

We are using Selenium for web application automation and mobile automation.

In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature.

We use sticker boards and we are happy with the UI.

Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code. This means that we have to spend a lot of time on maintenance. 

We have been using Selenium HQ for the past two years.

Stability has been a problem during my testing. I have run the same code several times and faced issues for no apparent reason. Problems were identified, though the objects are all in place and no changes have happened in the UI, the test failed unwantedly. Then, we run the test case for the second time, the result will be true. This means that there is instability in the tests.

We only have a small number of test cases and haven't faced any problem with scalability. However, I am not sure what will happen when we try bulk testing.

There are three different teams for automation in my organization, and each has a single point of contact, so there are three different people.

We have not been in contact with technical support. When we did have a problem, we were able to resolve it by finding the solution online.

We were using another set of tools for quite some time before we switched to Selenium HQ.

We are also using Appium, which has native support for Android and iOS devices.

The initial setup was complex and it took us approximately five days to complete.

Our in-house team handled the deployment.

One person is responsible for maintenance, although this is one of the problems that we faced. There is no separate team for maintenance.

This is an open-source product so there is no cost other than manpower.

We conducted a PoC using UiPath for RPA. We are planning to try using Tricentis Tosca for codeless automation. We are continuing with our evaluation and ultimately, want to find the best tool.

My advice for anybody who is considering Selenium HQ is that if there is a timeframe that is separate from the automation then it is suitable. However, if there is no timeframe and the issue does not fit into the automation, and it needs to be adapted manually, then this product is not a good choice.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.