No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Selenium HQ vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
5th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Telerik Test Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
27th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
13th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (12th), Test Automation Tools (23rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Selenium HQ is 4.3%, up from 3.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.8%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Selenium HQ4.3%
Telerik Test Studio1.8%
Other93.9%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Sri Durga U - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Quality Engineer Data at Epsilon
Offers versatility in testing automation while improvements can elevate its capabilities
I currently use Jenkins and Maven for framework development. The flow involves creating the project with Maven, and once test case execution is completed locally, we push the jobs to Jenkins. It automatically triggers the executions in Jenkins so everyone in the team can see the execution report and status. I would rate the solution at 60% out of 100. Previously, troubleshooting was difficult. When test cases fail for various reasons, logs cannot explain everything, but logging is very important to get the failure results. For logging, Amazon Q will suggest where the log code needs to be included. In Jenkins, when the code is executed and results are viewed, we can easily identify where the error occurred and troubleshoot efficiently, reducing time by two to three hours. I can recommend many packages with Selenium HQ. Wait conditions and numerous features are available to use. I recommend most of them to individuals. My overall rating for Selenium HQ is 7 out of 10.
Raghvendra Jyothi - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager Project Management at Capgemini
Very good performance and load testing capabilities
There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution is free to use."
"If we want to automate web applications, Selenium HQ is the best tool because it supports multiple languages, browsers, and operating systems, and it's open-source."
"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."
"What I like the most is that it is fast, and when comparing, it is faster than HQ QTP and supports multiple processes, which is great."
"The parallel batch execution as well as reporting feature in the tests are very valuable to me."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"I have invested my time in learning the tool and got good recognition for creating automation framework."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"The object repository is the most valuable feature, as different elements can be identified and reutilized through the repository across other scripts, and the product has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
 

Cons

"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"The IDE portion is useful for doing quick recordings of steps, but the resulting scripts are extremely fragile."
"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."
"There are sometimes delays and if we are moving into a new Chrome version or a new Firefox version, there can be delays of up to a couple of days to figure out the plugins and there's no immediate support available."
"Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks."
"In the future, Selenium should be able to automate desktop-based applications, as it is not currently able to handle non-web-based, Windows-based applications."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"The free option is very limited, but the pay version is expensive."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"We have not seen a return on investment yet."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"The first time I customized the solution, it was quite challenging."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The setup cost is open source or free."
"It's open-source, so there's no need to pay for a license."
"It's an open-source tool that you can work with at any time without any cost."
"This product is open source and free. That was a huge deciding factor for us getting into it."
"Selenium HQ costs around $1000 per month, which is a bit high based on what they're offering."
"There is no pricing cost. License is Apache License 2.0."
"Selenium is open-source."
"This is an open-source product that can be used free of charge."
"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,877 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
12%
Construction Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise33
Large Enterprise52
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
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 t...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
I will give an eight for my satisfaction with the pricing and licensing costs of Selenium HQ.
What needs improvement with Selenium HQ?
Some improvements can be implemented as compared to Playwright, which is why I rate it seven out of ten.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

SeleniumHQ
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T
Find out what your peers are saying about Selenium HQ vs. Telerik Test Studio and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,877 professionals have used our research since 2012.