We performed a comparison between Original Software Qualify and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Katalon Studio and others in Regression Testing Tools."Flexible software with multiple functions, e.g. scenario deployment, new entity creation, workflow creation, etc. Technical support for this software is very good."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"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."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"The solution is very easy to implement."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"The reporting engine of Original Software Qualify AQM needs to change. It's very difficult to develop complex reports. Its reporting function needs improvement."
"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 initial setup was difficult."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"One drawback to Selenium is that there is nothing like an object repository, such as that found in QTP, especially considering continuous integration practices that have become common nowadays."
"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."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"Selenium HQ can improve by creating an enterprise version where it can provide the infrastructure for running the tests. Currently, we need to run the test in our infrastructure because it's a free tool. If Google can start an enterprise subscription and they can provide us with the infrastructure, such as Google Cloud infrastructure where we can configure it, and we can run the test there, it would be highly beneficial."
Earn 20 points
Original Software Qualify is ranked 35th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Regression Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Original Software Qualify is rated 9.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Original Software Qualify writes "Flexible, multifunctional, and stable testing software with good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". Original Software Qualify is most compared with , whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test.
See our list of best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Regression 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.