We performed a comparison between Panaya Test Dynamix and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."It is easy for business users to use who are not familiar with testing tools."
"The initial setup was not complex and the product itself is very easy to configure and use."
"Provides better monitoring for testing campaigns and business process testing."
"The test repository to follow the test progress is most valuable because we can easily create and manage a huge number of test scripts. We can copy and paste, replicate, and drag and drop many tests scripts. We can create test scripts en masse. When you have a high volume of tests, the tool is quite useful. It works well when you want to manage a lot of tests, such as you have 1,000 or more test scripts."
"The solution helps with recording and documentation."
"Test migration from HPE are done automatically. We can extract our tests from HPE, and they convert it into the Panaya format."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to copy the scenarios and as we do a rollout we can efficiently complete test three and put it somewhere else under a new subsidiary."
"Data parametrization and parallelization are the most important features in any automation tool."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"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 it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"They provide options for custom fields or tabs, but customization of workflows would be great."
"It would be nice to be able to test offline. What I mean by that is today most of the time things are in the cloud, but sometimes when we are in factories and we do not have network access and we should be able to download a test script into our PCs and do the test offline. Once that is complete we can re-upload it when we have a network connection."
"Support is reactive and in English only."
"The setup of Panaya Recorder is a bit complex. Panaya is a SaaS application, but you need to install some components on your computer. You need to set up your computer to allow Panaya Recorder to work. There are five or six things to do each time you install Panaya for any user. If you miss something, Panaya Recorder doesn't work. So, it is complex to install."
"Nothing is automatic."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"Selenium HQ doesn't support Windows-based applications, so we need to integrate with the third-party vendor. It would be great if Selenium could include Windows-based automation. You need to integrate it with a third-party tool if you want to upload any files. When we interact with a Windows application, we usually use Tosca."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"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."
Panaya Test Dynamix is ranked 22nd in Functional Testing Tools with 5 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Panaya Test Dynamix is rated 8.4, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Panaya Test Dynamix writes "More than reliable, with satisfied results for our needs, and excellent testing options". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". Panaya Test Dynamix is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Tricentis qTest, Worksoft Certify and Zephyr Enterprise, 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 Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.
