We performed a comparison between LambdaTest and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Geolocation testing is as straightforward as ticking checkboxes of browsers, operating systems, and countries."
"It is a scalable solution."
"LambdaTest easily integrates with leading project management, bug tracking, and CI-CD tools like Jira, Asana, Jenkins, Circle CI, and more."
"We use the solution for automation testing and monitoring."
"The most valuable features are that it's essentially on-demand, and you only focus on getting the code that needs to be executed without having to worry about the OS, hardware, etc."
"The Docker tunnel integration for local testing can be extremely useful to run on multiple instances in parallel."
"Stability-wise, I have not experienced any downtime or other performance issues."
"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."
"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's not too complicated to implement."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"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."
"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"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."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"It would be nice to have an API for visual regression testing."
"Sometimes, when multiple users use the tool simultaneously, it can slow down, affecting efficiency."
"I would like to see all of the features available in the freemium plan so that I can test them."
"The scalability is good with Amazon, but IBM had some issues."
"You cannot perform native-app testing, as they offer simulation for web testing only."
"Their smart testing module needs improvement."
"I've also had some issues with the speed of certain API calls and the rendering of data. For example, when I'm onboarding data, the process can be slow."
"I feel that the automated screenshot testing takes a little longer on MacOS sometimes."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"There are some tiny issues with SeleniumHQ. For example, with respect to the scraping tests. Sometimes, a website will have some hidden items or blockages that inhibit us from extracting data directly. It would be beneficial if Selenium could extract that information."
"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 21 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. LambdaTest is rated 8.8, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of LambdaTest writes "Technical support should be improved, though it has great documentation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca and Perfecto, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our LambdaTest vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
