Selenium HQ Reviews

We are using Selenium HQ as a plugin within Visual studio and we develop in C#. We use the Visual Studio IDE and Selenium is our solution for automation testing.

The most valuable feature is that it is open-source.

The testing solution produces the best web applications.

Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code. The performance is something in need of improvement.

There is no direct option for image validation and this would be a useful addition in the future. In our application, we have a graphical representation that needs to be validated, and it can be done by validating all of the images. However, we can't do that with Selenium so we don't cover these scenarios in our test cases.

We have been using Selenium for more than six years.

We have not faced any issues in terms of stability.

We have not needed to contact technical support specifically for Selenium because there is a lot of information available on the internet. If we have problems then we can gather the solution ourselves.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We are satisfied with the pricing.

We have just completed a PoC with Eggplant and we prefer it because they have support for testing desktop applications.

In summary, this is a good product. If it is a web application that you are testing then this is the best option.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

• Automate any web page by providing URL
• One can use any programming language such as Ruby, Java, Python and few others
• Support for several types of locators
• Cross browser support

We run automated test cases after every deployment. The product helped us to implement continuous integration and worry free deployment process.

I had issues testing a flash application with Selenium Webdriver.

I've used 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.

It is an open source product with a strong user base and lot of user community support.

I have briefly used QTP. There are a few reasons.It is an open-source tool and it has cross browser support. Testers can run automated test cases in different browser, and QA engineers can write test cases in his/her choice of language such as Java, Ruby, Python and a few others.

The set up is straightforward if you have a programming background.

It is an open source tool but price in terms of time it is totally worth it. It saves us lot of time and cost once implemented. The cross browser testing functionality helped us to find issues quicker in specific browsers.

The product has record and play back tool but it is always better to write your own code and implement the framework.

This product doesn’t need a license and doesn’t cost anything. In the consulting companies every cent matters so it’s not easy to introduce a paid product without good background. It’s even harder to sell this idea to customer.

Automation testing improves the quality we deliver and reduce the time for regression testing.

Actually I’m quite happy with that product.

I've been using it for at least six years. Usually I use Selenium WebDriver, NUnit, and C#. In some projects we can use WeDriver IO and JS. Tests run using Remote Phantom. But as a base product for automation I use lately Selenium as it’s a free product.

No, usually it works perfectly fine in any platforms and languages. Fits any servers including Azure and has no problems to run the tests.

As it’s a free product there is no customer support but there is a community that takes in consideration all found bugs for further improvement.

For about 10 years ago I used TestComplete for Windows Forms to write the regression suite for application. I didn’t choose this product, it was a part of the solution by the time I started to work there. As I remember it was a great product but it requires the license. It can be good for the product company which I was working in but it doesn’t fit consulting companies.

It’s really easy to set up Selenium tests. Usually you need to make a framework which you can you as a part of setup project in any project later.

Just try it.

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.

We are using the solution as a trial at the moment and have not implemented it for customers.

The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior.

Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it.

I have been using Selenium HQ for approximately two years.

Selenium HQ is salable.

Selenium HQ is scalable.

Selenium HQ has a great community. You can receive information from forums. If you are stuck with something you have a community that can help you.

Miro Focus was a better solution than Selenium HQ for none programmers, it is easier to use.

The initial setup of Selenium HQ was easy. However, I was not directly involved.

Selenium HQ is a free solution.

When evaluating other solutions, such as Micro Focus, their price was not reasonable for our needs.

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.

We primarily use the solution in a web environment.

You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution.

The solution should listen to the community and build new features for it based on their advice.

Normally, the solution is stable.

The solution is scalable, but there are boundaries to it.

The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem.

If you've dealt with the solution before, it's fairly easy, but if you are new to Selenium, you will find it complex to implement. It's not a simple click-to-install product.

Deployment times vary depending on a company's rights and frameworks as well as the application deployment environment. If you have to do it from scratch, and you have to build a development pipeline, then it takes several days, and possibly even weeks. If you already have a development pipeline, and you just have to install the Selenium web line onto a machine, then it's done in five minutes.

I would advise others to only use Selenium in a unit test environment, and not an end test environment. It's very technical; you need a programmer and/or a developer to create your scripts. If you do not have development skills, then you will not be able to create scripts, at least in Selenium.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.