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.
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
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.
