We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Digital Lab 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 solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
"The product is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"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."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"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."
"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."
"It is a good automation tool."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"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."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."
"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."
"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"Selenium is good when the team is really technical because Selenium does less built-in methods. If it came with more built-in and pre-built methods it would be even easier for less technical people to work with it. That's where I think the improvement can be."
"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."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
OpenText UFT Digital Lab is ranked 20th in Functional Testing Tools with 16 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. OpenText UFT Digital Lab is rated 7.4, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Digital Lab writes "Robust solution for application lifecycle management with numerous valuable features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". OpenText UFT Digital Lab is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Appium, Perfecto, AWS Device Farm and Sauce Labs, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our OpenText UFT Digital Lab 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.