We performed a comparison between Qualibrate 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."The most valuable feature is that it's user-friendly."
"It is the principle functionality that we're leveraging, which really can be defined as recordings and playbacks. So, you record the scripts that you want to execute and you also want to be able to playback. So, these are the features that we are largely leveraging. There are flows and scenarios, and they are the design aspects that fit within the playback and the recording solution. For me, they are the core of Qualibrate, and that's what we're using."
"What Qualibrate makes very easy to do is to record a process flow. Within five minutes you have a clear document produced by Qualibrate. Instead of using Word, and copying and pasting pictures into it from printscreens, within five minutes what you have was easy to make and it's easy for users to use."
"We use the solution’s Test Planning & test Execution Scheduling features, and they are very important. They are easy to work with. We use SAP Solution Manager, and Qualibrate works with it, enabling us to manage all our tests, taking them from Solution Manager directly into Qualibrate."
"The widget's ease of use is the most valuable, which means it allows you or business people to record the automated test scripts. In most cases, it is really good because it is the business people who actually know how the system is being used. The simplicity of the design is valuable, where you can record your transactions, then create your automated scripts. You can automate it at the same time, and the automation features are cool."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The stability and performance are good."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"It's not too complicated to implement."
"Not everything in SAP works well with Qualibrate. There is a development tool called xpath and you have to program it. We always thought it wouldn't be necessary to program it with Qualibrate, that everything could be solved by Qualibrate without programming, but you have to program some things. Using xpath is more complicated, and not easy for everybody. It would be helpful if there were a no-code solution for this."
"What I would really like to see is if you are running scripts in Qualibrate, and there is a defect, then you can have it automatically raise a defect in your own ticketing system."
"There is a module that we would like to have. We would like Qualibrate to design a requirements module so that we can design our testing, our flows, and our scenarios based on our actual requirements. Right now, we're doing that, but we're having to do it outside of Qualibrate. For example, in Excel, we might have a list of 50, 60, or 70 different requirements and combinations of tests that need to be executed, and since that module doesn't exist in Qualibrate, we're doing it offline. We have already vocalized that wishlist to them, and they have acknowledged it, but I have no idea when they're going to get around to deploying something like that. It is probably number one on our list."
"We had an issue with SAP when using PDF forms. That was something that was not supported by Qualibrate, but we solved that issue by choosing another solution. That was the only wish we had with Qualibrate."
"What could be improved would be the intuitiveness of the reporting engine. It does have reporting, i.e., a dashboard, but it is preconfigured, predefined KPIs and datasets. That could be improved because the datasets don't have descriptions, so you really need to know what you're doing. Whereas, it would be great if it could have more descriptions and be easy to build your own KPIs."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"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."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
Earn 20 points
Qualibrate is ranked 35th in Functional Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Qualibrate is rated 8.8, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Qualibrate writes "Reduces our testing time significantly, enabling us to release more frequently". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". Qualibrate is most compared with , whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Telerik Test Studio, Worksoft Certify, Tricentis Tosca 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.