We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Tricentis Flood based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
"Their technical support is awesome."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"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."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
"We used an implementation strategy to deploy the solution, not because of the tools, but mainly because of the scripting part of the tool."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Tricentis Flood is ranked 18th in Load Testing Tools. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Tricentis Flood is rated 7.0. 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 Tricentis Flood writes "Need improvements ,but has cloud and on-premises options". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test, whereas Tricentis Flood is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, BlazeMeter and OpenText LoadRunner Cloud.
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.