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."It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"The product is easy to use."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
"The solution is very easy to implement."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"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 most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"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 has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"It is a good automation tool."
"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."
"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 documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"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."
"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."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
"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."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
OpenText UFT Digital Lab is ranked 21st in Functional Testing Tools with 16 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th 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.