We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Telerik Test Studio 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."The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"The solution is very easy to implement."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"It is very stable."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"Shadow DOM could be improved and the handling of single page applications. Right now, it's a bit complicated and there are a lot of additional scripts required if you want to handle a single page application in a neat way."
"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."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Telerik Test Studio is ranked 18th in Functional Testing Tools with 5 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Telerik Test Studio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Telerik Test Studio writes "Very good performance and load testing capabilities". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, OpenText Silk Test and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Telerik Test Studio is most compared with Ranorex Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca and Visual Studio Test Professional. See our Selenium HQ vs. Telerik Test Studio report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression 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.