We performed a comparison between Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence (DAI) and Selenium HQ based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the above criteria, Selenium HQ finishes just ahead of Eggplant DAI. Selenium users tell us testing times are faster and deliver great, accurate results. As it is open-source, it is very flexible and integrates well with every tool. Finally, as it is free, it is cost-effective, saves money, and helps organizations maintain profitability.
"We are able to now automate tests, which so far have been manual."
"Its scalability is good. It is useful for desktop applications, and it also uses OCR and does image recognition."
"Everything is happening on the layout or display that is used by the user. Eggplant prompts processes, like 'click here,' or 'look for this image.' Eggplant makes it possible for QA people and BAs, working in the actual display, to check if the software is providing the right images, the right text, and the right results. They don't have to go inside the code or to the TCP/IP layer. Everything is happening at the highest level."
"It provides very strong cross-platform support."
"It is easy to set up."
"The main feature of Eggplant Test is that it can do fully automated web testing and app testing."
"Good text reading ability."
"The solution is a stable one."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"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."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"Selenium HQ lets you create your customized functions with whatever language you want to use, like Python, Java, .NET, etc. You can integrate with Selenium and write."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"The reporting function is a bit shallow. The solution does not offer very comprehensive reporting in terms of your test results. The reporting time and the logs are very high level as well. These areas need improvement."
"I would like to see standardized actions already built into Eggplant. For example, "wait eight seconds". That way, I wouldn't need to create it as an action. Right now, I have to program that wait and describe it as an action so that everybody knows it is an action that waits eight seconds... That way, somebody who is not familiar with programming processes like "if-else", or "for", or "while", would be able, from the first moment, and without programming, to put some easy-to-use, standardized, actions in place."
"A step forward would be to have event support, because it is more or less linear at the moment."
"It has low productivity."
"Eggplant Test should emphasize on improving its offering in non-Windows environments."
"The language is too specific; it is just for Eggplant."
"There was no free trial in it."
"The solution would crash from time to time."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers. That's why it's not common for end-users, and especially for RPA activities or tasks. It's hard to automate tasks for end-users. If it will be easier, more user-friendly, and so on, perhaps it can be more interesting for this kind of user."
"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."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"Sometimes we face challenges with Selenium HQ. There are third party tools that we use, for example for reading the images, that are not easy to plug in. The third party add-ons are difficult to get good configuration and do not have good support. I would like to see better integration with other products."
Eggplant Test is ranked 11th in Test Automation Tools with 16 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 3rd in Regression Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Eggplant Test is rated 7.8, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Eggplant Test writes "Empowers effective test automation with comprehensive platform coverage and scalability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". Eggplant Test is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and OpenText UFT One, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Telerik Test Studio, Worksoft Certify, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test and OpenText UFT One. See our Eggplant Test vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Regression 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.