We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Testim 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."Selenium HQ lets you create your customized functions with whatever language you want to use, like Python, Java, .NET, etc. You can integrate with Selenium and write."
"It's not too complicated to implement."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The product is easy to use."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line."
"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers. That's why it's not common for end-users, and especially for RPA activities or tasks. It's hard to automate tasks for end-users. If it will be easier, more user-friendly, and so on, perhaps it can be more interesting for this kind of user."
"There are some tiny issues with SeleniumHQ. For example, with respect to the scraping tests. Sometimes, a website will have some hidden items or blockages that inhibit us from extracting data directly. It would be beneficial if Selenium could extract that information."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Testim is ranked 17th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Testim is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Testim writes "A stable tool to help users take care of the implementation phases in their environment". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test, whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Functionize, Applitools and Ranorex Studio. See our Selenium HQ vs. Testim report.
See our list of best Functional 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.
