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)."You can easily download the tool's rule packs and update them."
"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."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"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."
"The tool is easy to use and log in with respect to other tools. It is open-source. We can customize the product. I also like its security."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"We are having issues with false positives that need to be resolved."
"Fortify Software Security Center's setup is really painful."
"This solution is difficult to implement, and it should be made more comfortable for the end-users."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"The reporting part can be better."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
"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."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"Shadow DOM could be improved and the handling of single page applications. Right now, it's a bit complicated and there are a lot of additional scripts required if you want to handle a single page application in a neat way."
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 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.