Selenium HQ Reviews

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. 

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

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.

Our primary use case is we have a new development going on for our tool, our project, where we have to test web-based applications. These are all web-based applications wherein Selenium fits well for all the web applications.

I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good.

I would like to see some reporting or test management tools.

I have been working with Selenium HQ for the past eight months.

The stability is evident and it is a good tool.

The scalability is good. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it a nine.

When it comes to technical support you do have to go online for the support community.

Selenium only works with web-based applications, it does not work on desktops, or any Java-based, form-based applications. There is no automation for any of these kinds of applications. With the Oracle Application Testing Suite, it can do anything. Currently, it has some drawbacks in automating desktop-based applications. However, the main difference is Selenium only sticks to web-based applications. But Oracle Application Testing Suite, or any other testing suite, like UFT, can automate a form-based or desktop-based application.

The initial setup is very simple and not complex.

The pricing is open source.

If you are wanting to do some web-based automation, definitely Selenium HQ is a good solution. I would rate Selenium HQ a six out of ten.