We performed a comparison between Helix ALM and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Atlassian, Siemens and others in Application Requirements Management."Helix ALM enables users to build, make efficient and effective decisions, and use least-cost methods for maximum benefit, as fast as possible. They allow you to see and visualize your configuration."
"The most valuable features of Helix ALM are traceability and flexibility."
"The tool offers high stability."
"You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"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 most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"The accountability and the equivalent to using, acting, editing, working with Word, and also importing and exporting from Word needs improvement."
"It would be great to see Perforce's strategy is for implementing intelligence into the process via AI or ML. It's not clearly defined, at least not to my knowledge."
"Helix ALM should be able to integrate with other systems better. Helix ALM should also have an easier user interface, and the solution needs to have drag-and-drop tools included in it."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem."
Helix ALM is ranked 7th in Application Requirements Management with 7 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Helix ALM is rated 6.4, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Helix ALM writes "Helix ALM is insanely configurable, with great traceability, and flexibility". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". Helix ALM is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Jira, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation, Polarion Requirements and Tricentis qTest, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test.
We monitor all Application Requirements Management 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.