We performed a comparison between LambdaTest 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."The slow nature of a cloud platform was compensated with parallel testing, and now we are able to finish our testing job faster than it was before COVID."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The Docker tunnel integration for local testing can be extremely useful to run on multiple instances in parallel."
"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."
"LambdaTest easily integrates with leading project management, bug tracking, and CI-CD tools like Jira, Asana, Jenkins, Circle CI, and more."
"In case something goes wrong at LambdaTest end, the Support team is extremely responsive to analyze any platform-related issues."
"LambdaTest offers geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"The support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."
"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."
"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."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"It's not too complicated to implement."
"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."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"I've also had some issues with the speed of certain API calls and the rendering of data. For example, when I'm onboarding data, the process can be slow."
"I feel that the automated screenshot testing takes a little longer on MacOS sometimes."
"Load flow compared to other stacks needs improvement."
"Improvements on a platform need to happen on a timely basis...There should be some new features coming up or some performance improvisation over a period of time."
"It would be much easier for us to read the test if they provided dashboard analytics."
"The analytics over the automation dashboard can be more intuitive."
"I think Lambdatest is a valuable tool for our team and things that have room for improvement would be mobile app testing, as it can be an important addition to the tool."
"Mobile application testing will be an added benefit for us if LambdaTest implements this really soon."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"The login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ"
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more."
"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."
"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."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 18 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. LambdaTest is rated 9.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of LambdaTest writes "Cost-effective, good integration, and parallel testing leads to good performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Katalon Studio, Perfecto and Digital.ai Continuous Testing, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our LambdaTest 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.
