Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Selenium HQ vs Testim comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

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
6th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (5th)
Testim
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
11th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Selenium HQ is 3.6%, down from 5.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Testim is 3.4%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation in testing processes sees improvement with multi-browser support and easier website interactions
Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks. The tool could simplify object identification, enabling users to generate XPaths without requiring detailed DOM understanding. Additionally, an automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
Dheeraj Bavirisetty - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhancing automation skills, intuitive, and low-code
We use Testim to automate our testing scripts. I am part of the testing team for a corporate bank in the US, which is my client. We work on building their product, and Testim is used to automate the scripts since it is a low-code automation platform The feature I like most about Testim is the…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Selenium HQ is a widely used open source tool that makes it easier to understand and automate websites."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"What I like best about it is that it can automate everything on the front end with the help of other frameworks. The community worldwide provides support for any issues. Plus, it’s open-source, which is a big advantage."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"My customer previously validated every file and it would take almost 15-20 minutes for a document. They used to randomly select and test only 100 out of the thousands, maybe 85,000, files, to pick up sampling. Each file would take around 20 to 25 minutes, so we were not able to do it manually, but with the help of Selenium, we were able to test all the files in two days. It saves a lot of time."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The feature I like most about Testim is the record and playback capability, which does not require writing a lot of code."
"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 product is easy to use."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"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."
"I have seen reduced maintenance due to smart locators, as it automatically finds locators for us even with minor application changes."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
 

Cons

"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"The login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ"
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"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."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"There is currently no room for improvement that I can identify as of now."
"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."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"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."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"Faster scripting would be beneficial, as test creation is faster now."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"The product is open-source and free."
"Selenium is open-source."
"It is an open-source solution."
"Currently, Selenium HQ is free for customers."
"Selenium is a free tool."
"The solution is open source."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"The solution is not expensive."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools."
"The tool offers a fixed pricing model for our company."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
864,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Educational Organization
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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 do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
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 do you like most about Testim?
The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Testim?
I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools.
What needs improvement with Testim?
More advanced AI-based features and features on the API side would help us create better end-to-end test suites.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

SeleniumHQ
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Microsoft, salesforce, JFrog, USA Today, Globality
Find out what your peers are saying about Selenium HQ vs. Testim and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
864,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.