We performed a comparison between Bitbar and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Ability to use different frameworks."
"Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"It's easy for new people to get trained on this solution. If we are hiring new people, the resource pool in the market in test automation is largely around Selenium."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"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%."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"The drawback is the solution is not easy to learn."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
Earn 20 points
Bitbar is ranked 26th in Functional Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Bitbar writes "It's helped me when I've been short of devices and want to test whether the application will work on a specific device or not". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, CrossBrowserTesting, Sauce Labs and LambdaTest, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test.
See our list of best Functional 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.