We performed a comparison between Fortify Software Security Center and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Testing (AST)."This is a stable solution at the end of the day."
"The reporting is very useful because you can always view an entire list of the issues that you have."
"You can easily download the tool's rule packs and update them."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"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."
"I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"Fortify Software Security Center's setup is really painful."
"We are having issues with false positives that need to be resolved."
"This solution is difficult to implement, and it should be made more comfortable for the end-users."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support."
"The latest versions are often unstable."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"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%."
More Fortify Software Security Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortify Software Security Center is ranked 27th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 3 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Fortify Software Security Center is rated 7.4, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Fortify Software Security Center writes "A fair-priced solution that helps with application security testing ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". Fortify Software Security Center is most compared with Fortify on Demand, Tricentis Tosca, Checkmarx One and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
