Coming October 25: PeerSpot Awards will be announced! Learn more

Selenium HQ vs Silk Test comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
SeleniumHQ Logo
12,561 views|10,982 comparisons
Micro Focus Logo
3,706 views|2,435 comparisons
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Silk Test 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.

To learn more, read our detailed Selenium HQ vs. Silk Test report (Updated: August 2022).
634,590 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"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.""The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple.""It's easy for new people to get trained on this solution. If we are hiring new people, the resource pool in the market in test automation is largely around Selenium.""Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits.""Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable.""We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here.""The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well.""There is a supportive community around it."

More Selenium HQ Pros →

"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing.""Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."

More Silk Test Pros →

Cons
"It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line.""Sometimes we face challenges with Selenium HQ. There are third party tools that we use, for example for reading the images, that are not easy to plug in. The third party add-ons are difficult to get good configuration and do not have good support. I would like to see better integration with other products.""It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements.""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.""An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM.""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.""We do not have enough resources or enough people to employ and hire. So, I'm hiring whoever I find, and they don't always have enough technical knowledge to operate Selenium.""I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."

More Selenium HQ Cons →

"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important.""Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."

More Silk Test Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "It's an open-source tool that you can work with at any time without any cost."
  • "This is an open-source product so there is no cost other than manpower."
  • "It is all free."
  • "Selenium is an open-source solution, and It's free."
  • "Selenium is open-source."
  • "Selenium is a free tool."
  • "Selenium HQ is open source and our use of it in our company is provided for free."
  • "Selenium is free software so we do not pay licensing costs."
  • More Selenium HQ Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."
  • More Silk Test Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    634,590 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate… more »
    Top Answer:The solution is very easy to implement.
    Top Answer:The solution is open-source and free to use. There are no licensing costs.
    Top Answer:Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts.
    Top Answer:We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee.
    Top Answer:We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw… more »
    Ranking
    3rd
    Views
    12,561
    Comparisons
    10,982
    Reviews
    33
    Average Words per Review
    565
    Rating
    7.6
    19th
    Views
    3,706
    Comparisons
    2,435
    Reviews
    2
    Average Words per Review
    648
    Rating
    7.5
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    SeleniumHQ
    Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
    Learn More
    SeleniumHQ
    Video Not Available
    Overview

    Selenium HQ is an umbrella project that includes a number of tools and frameworks that allow for web browser automation. In particular, Selenium offers a framework for the W3C WebDriver specification, a platform- and language-neutral coding interface that works with all of the main web browsers.

    Selenium is a toolset for automating web browsers that uses the best methods available to remotely control browser instances and simulate a user's interaction with the browser. It enables users to mimic typical end-user actions, such as typing text into forms, choosing options from drop-down menus, checking boxes, and clicking links in documents. Additionally, it offers a wide range of other controls, including mouse movement, arbitrary JavaScript execution, and much more.

    Although Selenium HQ is generally used for front-end website testing, it is also a browser user agent library. The interfaces are universal in their use, which enables composition with other libraries to serve your purpose.

    The source code for Selenium is accessible under the Apache 2.0 license. The project is made possible by volunteers who have kindly committed hundreds of hours to the development and maintenance of the code.

    Selenium HQ Tools

    These three main Selenium HQ tools have powerful capabilities:

    • WebDriver: If you are just starting out with desktop or mobile website test automation, you will be using WebDriver APIs. WebDriver controls the browser and executes tests using the automation APIs that browser vendors provide. This gives the impression that a real person is using the browser. Because WebDriver's API does not need to be compiled alongside application code, it is not intrusive. As a result, you can test the same application that you push live.

    • IDE: Develop your Selenium test cases using an IDE (integrated development environment). The most effective way to create test cases is to utilize this simple Chrome and Firefox extension. IDE uses Selenium commands that are already in use to record user activity in the browser with parameters set by the context of the element. This is an excellent approach to learning Selenium script syntax and will save you time.

    • Grid: You can run test cases on several machines and operating systems with Selenium Grid. The local end controls how the test cases are triggered, and the remote end automatically runs the test cases after they are triggered.

    Reviews from Real Users

    Selenium HQ stands out among its competitors for a number of reasons. Two major ones are its driver interface and its speed. PeerSpot users take note of the advantages of these features in their reviews:


    Avijit B., an automation tester at a tech services company, writes of the solution, “The driver interface is really useful. When we implement the Selenium driver interface, we can easily navigate through all of the pages and sections of an app, including performing things like clicking, putting through SendKeys, scrolling down, tagging, and all the other actions we need to test for in an application.”

    Another PeerSpot reviewer, a software engineer at a financial services firm, notes, “Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."

    SilkTest is robust and portable test automation for web, native, and enterprise software applications. Silk Test's portability enables users to test applications more effectively with lower complexity and cost in comparison to other functional testing tools on the market. Silk Test's role based testing enables business stakeholders, QA engineers, and developers to contribute to the whole automation testing process, which drives collaboration and increases the effectiveness of software testing.
    Offer
    Learn more about Selenium HQ
    Learn more about Silk Test
    Sample Customers
    BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
    Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm24%
    Computer Software Company19%
    Retailer12%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company21%
    Financial Services Firm12%
    Comms Service Provider10%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company22%
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Comms Service Provider10%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business31%
    Midsize Enterprise27%
    Large Enterprise42%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business20%
    Midsize Enterprise20%
    Large Enterprise60%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise72%
    Buyer's Guide
    Selenium HQ vs. Silk Test
    August 2022
    Find out what your peers are saying about Selenium HQ vs. Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: August 2022.
    634,590 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Selenium HQ is ranked 3rd in Functional Testing Tools with 35 reviews while Silk Test is ranked 19th in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 7.6, while Silk Test is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Highly customizable and the best tool out there to do automated testing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Silk Test writes "A stable solution with good scripting feature, but needs better scalability and a bigger pool of third-party contractors". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, IBM Rational Functional Tester and Telerik Test Studio, whereas Silk Test is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Apache JMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Tricentis Tosca and Micro Focus UFT Developer. See our Selenium HQ vs. Silk Test report.

    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.