Selenium HQ Reviews

My company started using Selenium HQ two years ago for unit testing. We were trying to evaluate the record and playback features. We are basically outsourcing this function, and we're charged for every developed feature and testing. So, we thought that we could test it ourselves using the record and playback feature. We were navigating our web application records in a macro and tried to reproduce that later. But for some reason, it's not the best solution for us.

I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output.

It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test.

I think we have been using Selenium HQ for two years, but I only joined the company six months ago.

We are satisfied with its stability.

We are satisfied with its scalability. We have five or six users working with Selenium HQ.

Selenium is an open-source solution, and It's free.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Selenium HQ a seven.

We employ the version of the solution with the most ease of use, based on a search we conducted five or six years back. We now have a new client who likes the approach we used with a different one. We have a script to download the latest version, integrate it with the regression suite and then run it. Our current and previous clients equally approve of this approach. We make certain to utilize the latest version even when conducting tests during the development stage, as we find it easy to work with.

Remote server execution is a feature we find most valuable. We make use of Selenium Grid as concerns parallel execution. We also find the ordinary features of Selenium Grid to be valuable, 90 percent of our purchases comprising UI and 10 percent back-end.

In the past, we had difficulty with screenshots, but this has been remedied. We feel that all the current solutions are usable and the providers are helpful.

This said, the login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ. It would be nice if the solution provided an internal login system, one which would allow us to easily debug it. Until such time as a login system will be added from the vendor application, it will not be possible to identify the exact cause of a potential failure, unless there should be an interaction with, say, the UI element. Selenium HQ currently allows for an exception should an element be stale, not be found, or intractable. 

We have been using Selenium HQ since 2007.

The solution is very stable. I always suggest Selenium, even when conducting internal training. As I consider this to be a better solution than that offered by the competition and one which works, I do the same with my team. I always advocate on behalf of the ease of integration of Selenium HQ.

We have not made use of Selenium HQ’s technical support. We belong to a forum site that we joined some time ago while looking for help in finding an integration solution on the pipeline side. We were able to obtain all the information we needed from the Selenium HQ forum. Meaning, there was no need to contact anyone else with our frequent questions.

The initial setup of the deployment cycle and the process of onboarding users takes an average of 10-15 minutes. This is the length of time it takes for us to set up in our pipeline the data repositories for the regression suite, and, subsequently, integrate the data with Selenium HQ, which is the point at which we run it.

We implement the solution for our clients, not simply resell it.

The solution is very easy to implement. The first step which must be done is to go through the documentation on the site. I feel the solution to be pretty straightforward and people are drawn to it by its ease of use. There is always help available on the web for integration or implementation issues.

I rate Selenium HQ as an eight out of ten.

We have a lot of information that we are putting on different websites and social media platforms because we need to inform our social network users about what we are doing, what we are planning to do, and what was done. Sometimes, it's information which is the same, or it's the same on different websites, in different web software, and so on. I am using Selenium mostly for this purpose.

I like its simplicity.

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. 

The second thing, when you are working in IT, you know about such tools. But if you are on the business side, you don't have much information at all.

I would like to see easy onboarding with training for end-users. Because there is a lot of stuff for developers, but for end-users, I would say none or approximately none.

I've been using Selenium HQ for five years.

I didn't have problems with stability.

I didn't have problems with scalability.

The initial setup is complex. I think some changes were done, but it's still too complicated for end-users. 

I would advise potential users to contact their IT guys because they will have a problem setting up the first automation. Of course, if there are people like me who want to develop their own knowledge, I would say they need time to get to know how to use it, optimize the process, etc. 

But if not, it will be easier for end-users to start with some kind of RPA offering by different vendors because they have their tools prepared for the end-users, for onboarding, and so on.
Because these open-source tools are still tools made for developers and IT guys, not for end-user.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Selenium HQ a six.

In my company, I use the tool for testing web browsers.

We basically use the product for two things. The first is for testing for a website. The other thing is for repeating actions so that you can repeat the same action over and over with ease and without having to repeat the original steps. 

The solution is free to use. It's open-source, and you can modify the source. 

You can use it on different platforms, including Windows, Linux, or macOS.

It's easy to find and receive help from other developers. There is a good community that surrounds it.

The solution has been very stable so far.

Sometimes it's difficult to understand the solution. It's a good solution, however, it has many specific things you need to know, or you need to learn about. For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use. You have to know how to program. You need to be a developer.

The tool has two steps: first, when you record, and second when you play back. However, in the middle, you need to look at a file. You need to save a file and after that look at them. It would be ideal if the solution allowed for the process to be one step and more automatic. 

The initial setup is quite complex.

I've been using the solution for maybe two years or so at this point. It's been a while.

The stability of the solution is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

I've never tried to scale the solution, however, it's my understanding that it is possible. On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate the potential to scale at a six or seven.

The tool is open source. Typically, when something is a commercial solution, there is more of a possibility of being scalable. We depend on other developers to grow the tool. 

Last year, we only had two people on the tool. However, this year, I want to grow that number to about ten. They are all engineers. Of the team, 80% would be quality engineers and 20% would be developers.

I don't use Selenium technical support. As an open-source tool, you need to go to the community and the forums.

Typically, you can find your answers pretty quickly. You can ask the community as well, and usually, someone gets back to you pretty fast.

I also use SmartBear. Selenium only works for web browsers, and sometimes I need to check an application. When that is the case, I cannot use Selenium, and I instead use SmartBear.

The initial setup is not straightforward. It's pretty complex.

It's complex due to the fact that you need to download a complement for the web browser and you need to recall the tests and you have to load the files. When you do a recall, the tools create a file with the steps. Before you need to playback, you need to load the file. It's not easy. You need to know some things about the tool. 

The deployment took maybe six months to possibly 10 months.

You only need one person for deployment and maintenance.

The solution is open-source and free to use. There are no licensing costs.

We did look at Katalon Studio before ultimately choosing Selenium HQ.

The principle difference is Katalon is one solution. You can't change the functionalities in the solution. It's also complex to use and demands a lot of memory. You need a lot of RAM or a big processor. It just takes up too many resources. 

We are just a customer and end-user.

I'm not sure which version number we're using. However, it is a version from 2020, from the last year or so.

I'd advise those considering the solution, if you want use SeleniumHQ, it's a good option if you have good developers that understand the tool and can make changes in the tool. If you have the right people on hand, it works very, very well.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. If it didn't need such technical expertise, I might rate it higher.

We are using SeleniumHQ for automating the test scripts.

What I like the most is that it is fast. When comparing, it faster than HQ QTP.

It supports multiple processes, which is great.

Just by changing a line of code, it will work with multiple processes.

The locating of web elements is a complex process where you require the WebDriver application and create a locator by using  By Class. They are not always matching.

It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements.

Another negative point is that you cannot delete the application, you can only delete the web application.

I have been using this solution for six months.

This solution has been stable. We have not experienced any issues with bugs or glitches.

Selenium HQ does not offer proper support. As a free solution, it doesn't offer proper support. You have to search for some blogs.

The initial setup was fine. It didn't seem to be complex.

The difficulty was with the web interface and finding the objects. I have to inspect elements and this times time.

I am still in training but will improve in the next few months.

It's an open-source tool that you can work with at any time without any cost.

I am at the beginner's level, working alone to get some more practice. It will take some time to have more experience with this solution.

Micro Focus is more user-friendly, and they offer paid support.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use Selenium HQ for web automation. We are using C Sharp for development.

Using Selenium HQ helps us by executing tests quickly. It saves us time and reduces the need for manual testing of repetitive tasks, thereby reducing efforts.

The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are that it is free and allows using any programming language. Additionally, it supports different frameworks that are suitable for various projects.

There is a challenge with concurrent testing, where parallelization is not fully supported. Sequential tests depending on each other cannot be executed in parallel. This feature could be improved.

I have been using the solution for more than two years.

The stability of the product is good. There are no major issues.

The scalability rating would be around a seven to eight out of ten. There are still challenges with parallelization and testing.

There is enough help available online. Simple questions and repetitive tasks have a lot of available resources. However, finding help for customized scenarios can be challenging.

Positive

The setup process was simple. I managed to complete it by myself.

There are many products that depend on Selenium HQ. Protractor is one of them.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use the product for mobile and API testing purposes.

Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies. We can combine it with APM for mobile, API, and web testing.

They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps. Additionally, they could add more customization features for reporting.

We have been using Selenium HQ as partners for nine years.

The product is stable. However, it is impacted by the changes in UI. I rate the stability a seven out of ten.

We manage Selenium HQ for 20 customers. It is a scalable product and suitable for small to medium enterprises. It needs improvement in terms of supporting Windows devices.

I rate the scalability a seven or eight.

It is an open-source solution, and thus, we do not receive direct support services. We refer to relevant documentation and community articles to resolve most issues.

The initial setup for mobile app testing, especially when installing simulators, is complicated. Configuring simulators for Android and iOS platforms is time-consuming due to trial and error. Setting it up for mobile automation takes approximately one to two weeks. However, for web automation, the process is comparatively straightforward. It takes less than an hour to complete.

I rate the process a seven out of ten.

It is an open-source solution.

It's crucial for technicians to thoroughly evaluate whether the solution aligns with the end-to-end application needs, especially considering the complexity of enterprise applications. For leveraging features like ERP integration or mobile testing, it is better to understand the compatibility and support for specific devices.

I rate Selenium HQ a seven out of ten.

We use the solution for the test automation of web solutions. It also helps us to create web browsers.  

My company uses the solution for critical deployments. 

I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website. 

I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard. 

I have been using the tool for five years. 

The tool is stable but needs to update to the new version of Chrome. 

I would rate the product's scalability an eight out of ten. My company has 2000 users for the solution.

I have never used support. I would search on the internet for tutorials. 

The solution's setup is easy in the local environment but complex on the server side. You need to also update the Chrome version in the cloud before setting it up in the local environment. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. The product is easy to use.