We performed a comparison between BrowserStack 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.
"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."
"The main core concept behind this product is, it takes the overhead of maintaining all of your devices or particular computers. It continuously adds the latest devices that are coming into the market."
"The integration is very good."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."
"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
"It just added some flexibility. There was nothing that improved our coding standards, etc. because all of our UIs were functional before we tried it."
"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 main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"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's not too complicated to implement."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"One of the biggest issues with BrowserStack is that if you don't have your network set up by the book, it's hard to get it to work with local desk machines."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"The solution is slow."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."
"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
"We'd like to see some more image management in future releases."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
Selenium HQ is an umbrella project that includes a number of tools and frameworks that allow for web browser automation. In particular, Selenium offers a framework for the W3C WebDriver specification, a platform- and language-neutral coding interface that works with all of the main web browsers.
Although Selenium HQ is generally used for front-end website testing, it is also a browser user agent library. The interfaces are universal in their use, which enables composition with other libraries to serve your purpose.
The source code for Selenium is accessible under the Apache 2.0 license. The project is made possible by volunteers who have kindly committed hundreds of hours to the development and maintenance of the code.
Selenium HQ Tools
These three main Selenium HQ tools have powerful capabilities:
Reviews from Real Users
Selenium HQ stands out among its competitors for a number of reasons. Two major ones are its driver interface and its speed. PeerSpot users take note of the advantages of these features in their reviews:
Avijit B., an automation tester at a tech services company, writes of the solution, “The driver interface is really useful. When we implement the Selenium driver interface, we can easily navigate through all of the pages and sections of an app, including performing things like clicking, putting through SendKeys, scrolling down, tagging, and all the other actions we need to test for in an application.”
Another PeerSpot reviewer, a software engineer at a financial services firm, notes, “Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."
BrowserStack is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 13 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. BrowserStack is rated 7.8, while Selenium HQ is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of BrowserStack writes "Unique features, useful geographical mimicking, but more integration needed". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Highly customizable and the best tool out there to do automated testing". BrowserStack is most compared with Sauce Labs, Perfecto, LambdaTest, Bitbar and Eggplant Test, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Micro Focus UFT One. See our BrowserStack 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.