We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Visual Studio Test Professional 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."The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"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 stable."
"The stability has always been very good."
"The tool has highly detailed debugging features."
"The user interface is very friendly."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its ease of use and availability."
"The most valuable features are tools like IntelliSense and ReSharper."
"The solution is very useful for compiling existing projects and developing new projects."
"User-friendly ID and direct integration with GitHub are the most valuable."
"It takes such a long time to use this solution that it may be worth looking into other free solutions such as TestProject or Katalon Studio, or paid solutions to replace it."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"The latest versions are often unstable."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"One drawback to Selenium is that there is nothing like an object repository, such as that found in QTP, especially considering continuous integration practices that have become common nowadays."
"The service right now is far too expensive. You need to pay per user."
"The performance could be faster."
"I would appreciate some enhancements in the interface, maybe adding more color options."
"The database administration could be better; you should be able to choose new tools with the development environment in Visual Studio. It could be easier to use."
"It is hard to learn, and you need to invest time to understand it."
"There are too many features with the product and I would like there to be less."
"The product must provide more integration."
"Visual Studio Test Professional needs to improve its stability."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. 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 Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Telerik Test Studio, Worksoft Certify, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText Silk Test, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and OpenText UFT One. See our Selenium HQ vs. Visual Studio Test Professional 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.