Selenium HQ Reviews

Selenium HQ is an automation tool for automating applications. 

Selenium HQ is primarily used for smoke tests, and its excellent stability allows such tests to be executed seamlessly. The solution helps in regression tests where certain scenarios need to be repeatedly set. Manual processing of regression tests is highly time-consuming, but using Selenium HQ can reduce the time effectively.  

I believe Selenium HQ to be the best solution in the market for automating web applications.

There are some synchronization issues with Selenium HQ; often, the solution is unable to match the browser speed, which has led to poor results. Some mechanisms should be added to Selenium HQ to improve synchronization. 

It's an open-source solution with regular updates, but previously, in the 3.14.0 version at our company, we had to setup the ChromeDrivers, but in the latest feature, it wasn't necessary as the solution got easily integrated into the cloud. 

I have been using Selenium HQ for two to three years. 

I will rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. At our organization we have a team of five or six people who are using Selenium HQ for automation. The maintenance of the product is always costly and time-consuming. It's very difficult for anybody to understand the code in business logic for a third party, so in our company, we need to share our knowledge with the maintenance professional first. 

To know about any updates on Selenium HQ I use search engines like Google and then update my Selenium HQ version accordingly. 

It's an effortless process to setup Selenium HQ. As part of the installation process, the dependencies need to be downloaded and pasted into the XML file for auto-execution. The installation of the solution can be completed in a few seconds. 

In our organization, we use Atlas for IDE and Maven for Eclipse to copy the dependencies from the cloud, and the rest of the testing process is setup using a test engine. 

For testing web applications using Selenium HQ, the panel application and test synchronization features have proven the most beneficial. Selenium HQ supports almost every project browser, like Edge, Firefox, and Chromium, for testing automation. I would definitely recommend Selenium HQ to others, it's a robust product for automating applications. 

I would rate Selenium HQ as nine out of ten. 

We are using Selenium HQ for the automation of web applications.

The solution can be deployed on the cloud or on-premise.

The solution has improved the company by reducing a lot of manual work.

The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes.

We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications.

I have been using Selenium HQ for approximately three years.

Selenium HQ is a stable solution. However, it depends on how the applications are identified. If the applications or objects are identified correctly then it is stable. Otherwise, we can have some glitches in the identification and verification.

The scalability of Selenium HQ is good. It can be scaled. There are some robotic files that can be added to scale up the solution.

We have approximately 2,000 to 3,000 users using this solution in our company.

Depending on the project we are involved with, we could use the solution daily, weekly, or monthly.

We use forums and documentation that are helpful for troubleshooting.

If you only look at the web application automation from Selenium HQ compared to other tools, such as WorkSoft and UFT, the speed of execution is very slow in WorkSoft and UFT. The scalability with multiple browsers is simpler and easier in Selenium HQ, whereas it's a bit more complicated in WorkSoft and UFT.

Selenium HQ's initial setup was straightforward. However, the integration part took some time.

I rate the initial setup of Selenium HQ a four out of five.

Selenium HQ is a free solution.

This solution is good to use if the application that is getting identified for the objects is able to uniquely identify the properties. If this process works well then it is good to use. If it is a web application, they can use this solution, but if a desktop-based application is involved, then they should look for another solution.

I rate Selenium HQ an eight out of ten.

We are using Selenium HQ for automated UI testing of web applications.

The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google.

Selenium HQ can improve by creating an enterprise version where it can provide the infrastructure for running the tests. Currently, we need to run the test in our infrastructure because it's a free tool. If Google can start an enterprise subscription and they can provide us with the infrastructure, such as Google Cloud infrastructure where we can configure it, and we can run the test there, it would be highly beneficial.

I have been using Selenium HQ for approximately nine years.

Selenium HQ is highly stable.

The scalability of Selenium HQ is good.

We have approximately 10 testers that are using this solution.

The initial setup of Selenium HQ is very difficult. You need different configurations on your system, such as Java and you need to configure it. Additionally, you need to have some IDEs such as Eclipse or IntelliJ IDEA on your system. Selenium is supported in many languages, such as .NET, Java, Python, JavaScript, and C#. So, at least you must be knowing any one of these languages, then only you can use Selenium.

The solution requires coding experience to be able to implement.

The deployment does not take a lot of time. You can create a continuous integration pipeline with TeamCity or Jenkins, and then you can run tests.

Selenium HQ is a free and open-source solution and is supported by Google.

We evaluated Tricentis Tosca and it was expensive and Selenium HQ is free. This is why we choose Selenium HQ.

My advice to others is the first step to using Selenium HQ is to learn a programing language.

I rate Selenium HQ a nine out of ten.

It's a very stable tool and it's open-source, and there are new versions available. The new versions come quickly and frequently, you receive a successor version with bug fixes very easily. The tool is easy to use and highly configurable.

I've done headless execution and at times I've found that pretty useful.

The solution is stable.

It's a scalable product.

There's documentation that can help with the setup.

It's not too complicated to implement. 

The product is easy to use.

The pricing is great. 

The reporting part can be better. They need some APIs or maybe in-built libraries for reporting. At times, it's difficult to locate elements on certain applications on the web. Locating the elements, like web tables, becomes a little difficult sometimes. They can improve that feature also.

I've been using the solution for eight to ten years. 

The stability is good. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is good. It's reliable. 

Companies can scale it to a certain extent, yes. However, if I have to do execution on Selenium grid or something like that, therefore, it's pretty scalable.

There are a lot of people using the product. I'm not sure about the number, however, it's likely around 500 people.

I know that there is some technical support available, however, I've never contacted them. By going on the web, on stack overflow, I've pretty much been able to find a solution if we've had questions or issues. I've never contacted technical support.

I've also worked with Micro Focus. 

I'm working with Micro Focus, however, for that part, I'm working on the mainframe - although I've done some web testing using Micro Focus on a website. Otherwise, I found Selenium to be easier, and simpler to use than Micro Focus when it comes to the web. A lot of support online is available. A lot of forums, and communities are there. For Micro Focus, the part where you identify objects on a webpage, that part is pretty simple on Selenium. You can use XPath or CSS or IDE or anything, and it works fine. Yet with Micro Focus, the web part, I found it a little tedious to work with. Selenium is much easier in that sense on the web part.

It's an internal website that we work on.

The setup is pretty simple.

We do not really require some technical person for the maintenance of Selenium HQ. That said, sometimes, due to certain issues, like dependency on certain versions, you have to change the entry in your pom file. Otherwise, certain open-source things don't work well with the latest version of Selenium. The backward compatibility for certain other open-source software and APIs don't work well with the latest version of Selenium. You have to have little backward compatibility also. Other than that, I found it was pretty stable with almost all the other open-source software. It didn't require constant watching.

We did not need the help of a consultant or integrator. By reading some help files on the internet, we could set it up pretty easily. That's not a problem.

We have an enterprise license. The pricing is good. I'd rate it at a four out of five in terms of affordability. 

I'm just a consumer or end-user. 

We deploy on the cloud and on Jira as well.

I'm working on the latest version of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten. If they fixed the reporting functionality, I'd rate it higher. 

We don't directly use Selenium. We have built a wrapper around Selenium so other teams can consume it.

We are using version 4.0.1. We run it on a Microsoft public cloud in the CI/CD server.

There are around four teams which are currently using this solution, and we have a target of having around 10 teams.

It's easy for new people to get trained on this solution. If we are hiring new people, the resource pool in the market in test automation is largely around Selenium. It has a wider community. If there are issues, you can look around online and find a good solution.

Selenium is in continuous development. They release very stable versions. Those are the key points which helped us pick Selenium over other tools.

There are a few things we have to actually design and plan when we are building the automation. There are new tools which handle it by themselves, but that is a give and take when you actually use or choose a tool. 

Shadow DOM could be improved and the handling of single page applications. Right now, it's a bit complicated and there are a lot of additional scripts required if you want to handle a single page application in a neat way.

With these technologies, at times you have a lot of callbacks. Those aren't handled very well with Selenium. At some point of time, suppose you have entered something and the button needs to be enabled. Now, in normal terms, it seems to be a client side action, so if you enter something on the client side, JavaScript is running. It'll say, "Value is this, so I'll enable the button."

With this technology, if you enter something, it will go back to the server, get some value, and then it will enable the button. At some point of time, your project's delayed, and there is a callback happening in the background. It will not try to understand that, and it may just timeout.

I have been using this solution for about eight years.

I think it has stabilized a lot, but it's not the best tool in the market. It has a lot of room for improvement, but it has a very big community.

It is certainly scalable. It depends on how you want to use it. You can use it over a grid with multiple office machines, or you can run it standalone.

We have never used technical support because there is normally good content on the internet.

We evaluated other options but chose Selenium because of the skill sets in the market. If you use other solutions, the challenge is that if a person leaves, you won't get a second person or third person. Replacements are very difficult to come by if you are using different solutions.

It's actually complex. It's not really straightforward, but it depends on what you're actually building for your organization. We have built a wrapper around it for other teams that are actually consuming it.

Initially, you build a solution around it, which is a challenge. If you are trying to build a standalone automation with Selenium, it will be a challenge.

There isn't a set deployment. If a team wants to use it, they can start using it from day one.

It's open-source, so it's free.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. 

Learning is easy. Implementation is not as easy, but it is still better than other tools in the market right now. I'm giving it an eight because there are a lot of things Selenium is not supporting. The rest of technology is changing, but they are not changing along with it. Normally, if we are writing a complex test, we have to do a lot of workarounds, which isn't good when we are writing scripts.

I think it's very easy to screw up with Selenium if you're using it for the first time. If you are getting it for a large organization or large project, it makes sense to have some professional help.

Our team primarily uses Selenium for web testing. It is useful for functional and regression testing. Although I am now managing a team and do not use any tools myself, my team works with several tools, including Selenium, Appium, KrayMaster, the Google Search tool, Postman, and Katalon Studio.

Using Selenium helps save money as it is an open-source tool. However, writing the code can be difficult and requires skilled personnel.

Selenium is a valuable tool for web testing, and it integrates easily with frameworks like the Gauge framework, making it easier than others. It supports different programming languages, including Java and JavaScript.

The most significant issue with Selenium is its difficulty in adapting to changing locators, which can hinder testing. Additionally, writing code can be challenging, especially for beginners.

I have been working with Selenium for about seven years.

While deploying and using Selenium, integrating frameworks and maintaining backups separately are areas that require more manual handling.

There is no need to contact the technical support team directly as there are many resources available online. Many people share solutions to common problems, so issues can often be resolved independently.

Neutral

Some colleagues argue that Cypress or Playwright might be better than Selenium, but we continue to use Selenium with the Gauge Framework.

As an open-source tool, Selenium does not have direct costs, but coding can be money-intensive because it is challenging.

Cypress and Playwright were considered by some colleagues as alternatives.

I mentioned that solving the issue of adapting to changing locators would significantly improve Selenium, potentially increasing its rating. Additionally, one can utilize web portals and AI to assist with problems.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

We are using Selenium for web test automation.

We are saving time with regression testing by using test automation.  

Selenium is also open source, so now we are integrating all our automation tests into the full pipeline. 

Selenium is very famous. Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community. This is the power of Selenium. Whatever you need, whatever your question, you will find an answer.

The initial setup is easy.

You can integrate the solution with pretty much anything.

It's open-source and free to use.

Maybe they could improve the record and play plugin for element detection. That would be ideal. If they could build some tools above Selenium for that, I'd find it helpful. People sometimes do not have that much technical knowledge, and having something more plug-and-play would be appealing.

We have many plans in our pipeline that still need to be implemented. Maybe we will find that we need some features that need to be integrated with Selenium, for example, for a multi-browser or for implementing many machines. We haven't fully implemented this solution yet.

The drawback is the solution is not easy to learn. You need resources and technical knowledge and have to deal with the maintenance of script changes. 

While it works well with Chrome, if you use it with other browsers, you may have issues. 

I've been using the solution for three or four years. 

We've never had any stability issues. It's reliable. The performance is good. It doesn't crash or freeze.

It is scalable. It's easy to expand. 

We have about 15 people working on the solution. 

I've never spoken to technical support per se. We tend to get help via the community if we have questions. It is quite robust and there is a lot of information about all kinds of issues publicly available. 

I have used other tools as well. Each tool has its own pros and cons. Each organization also has its own unique needs. There are budgets, resources, and other factors that would come into play as well.

The solution isn't difficult to set up. It's quite straightforward. 

I'd rate the ease of setup eight out of ten. 

I cannot recall exactly how long the deployment itself took. 

Sometimes there may be some maintenance required around upgrades. You would need to check the compatibility between the software, for example. That said, the maintenance requirements are pretty low. It's not complex to maintain the product. 

We handled the implementation ourselves, in-house. 

This is an open-source solution, which is a very positive benefit. 

I'd rate the solution six out of ten. It's not an out-of-the-box solution like Oracle or SAP. 

We primarily use the solution for normal regression tests.

I like most of it. It is possible to get a lot of help and find help on the internet since Selenium is so widespread and established. The documentation is great.  There is  a lot of help on websites like Stack Overflow.

It is very stable.

The product is open-source. 

We are thinking about codeless automation, like what ACCELQ offers. They could maybe release a similar product that would be a codeless product.

The initial setup was difficult. 

It would be nice to have it on the cloud, like ACCELQ. That way, we don't need to set up it ourselves and don't need hardware for that. That would also allow for many people at many subsidiaries or locations to work simultaneously with it.

I'd like the possibility of automatically checking the installed browser version and automatically downloading the Selenium driver that suits the installed browser. Otherwise, you have to download and set up it manually, and if you get a new browser version, you have to do it every time, and it's time-consuming.

We've been using the solution for one year. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

Of course, you need a lot of time to optimize your scripts so that they run stable.

This is not really scalable. 

If you consider load tests or multi-thread testing, you need very powerful hardware to start several browsers. That's why in this aspect, not very scalable if you run tests in parallel.

We just have two people leveraging the solution right now. They use it regularly, on a daily basis. 

There is a lot of documentation and general product knowledge online. We don't have direct support contact as it is an open-source solution. 

We did previously use Eggplant. It's not open-source. It's actually pretty expensive. 

One benefit of Eggplant was testing mobile apps. Also, you don't find so much information on Stack Overflow or on the internet about Eggplant; they have good support.

It was not very easy to set up. 

We needed to add a lot of plugins like TestNG and Maven. The whole configuration was not very easy. I am not sure if it is the Selenium setup or just the whole system setup.

The solution is open-source and free to use. 

I'm an end-user. 

The solution is okay, however, you need to use it together with the TestNG and with Maven and use different plugins that improve it.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.