Selenium HQ Reviews

Our primary use case is we have a new development going on for our tool, our project, where we have to test web-based applications. These are all web-based applications wherein Selenium fits well for all the web applications.

I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good.

I would like to see some reporting or test management tools.

I have been working with Selenium HQ for the past eight months.

The stability is evident and it is a good tool.

The scalability is good. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it a nine.

When it comes to technical support you do have to go online for the support community.

Selenium only works with web-based applications, it does not work on desktops, or any Java-based, form-based applications. There is no automation for any of these kinds of applications. With the Oracle Application Testing Suite, it can do anything. Currently, it has some drawbacks in automating desktop-based applications. However, the main difference is Selenium only sticks to web-based applications. But Oracle Application Testing Suite, or any other testing suite, like UFT, can automate a form-based or desktop-based application.

The initial setup is very simple and not complex.

The pricing is open source.

If you are wanting to do some web-based automation, definitely Selenium HQ is a good solution. I would rate Selenium HQ a six out of ten.

Our primary use case is for testing projects. We are a small startup company and each project has been assigned to test the web applications, elements, and identify the locators.

The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug.

The Appium screenshot is attached with a tool. If we could get a screenshot as soon as the test script is over that would let us know if the test has passed or failed that would be an improvement. I would like to see automatic logs generated. If it captures the log from the time we started the S-case until the driver is good. Whatever we are doing as manual intervention, should be avoided.

I have been using Selenium HQ for the past four months now.

The stability is excellent.

Selenium HQ is scalable, with more than one hundred developers and engineers using the product. They are test automation engineers.

I was using Appium previously.

The initial setup was straightforward and easy. The deployment time takes around two to three hours.

The setup cost is open source or free.

I would rate Selenium HQ an eight out of ten. Selenium HQ is good for a web testing application.

The primary use case for us is IntelliJ and IDEA.

The most valuable feature I have found is the bomb file and it is easy in its coding. It has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages.

I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack.

I have been using Selenium HQ for three years.

Selenium HQ is a stable solution.

Selenium HQ is definitely scalable.

Technical support consists of excellent documentation online.

Positive

The initial setup of Selenium HQ is straightforward.

Currently, Selenium HQ is free for customers.

I would rate Selenium HQ an eight out of ten.

We use it when you have a large number of scenarios to be tested manually, you would go for a web-based automation solution.

It is a good automation tool.

I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms.

I have been using Selenium HQ for the past five years.

I find Selenium HQ to be a stable product.

Selenium HQ is scalable for our needs.

Selenium HQ is not complex to work with.

We deployed in-house and it took between two to three weeks to complete.

The licensing pricing depends on the customer's needs.

It is a straightforward application to learn. If you know Java, it is something that can be easily learned and used. It has a lot of support out there. But again, it might not support some of the older back-end platforms. I would rate Selenium HQ an eight out of ten.

The main use case of Selenium HQ is for end-to-end automation of UI applications.

Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages.

An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM. I would also like better integration with applications like Salesforce.

I've worked with Selenium HQ for eight to nine years.

Selenium HQ is stable.

Selenium HQ is scalable - you can execute on multiple browsers in parallel.

Previously, I used UFT but switched to Selenium HQ as it's an open-source product while UFT is licensed.

The initial setup was straightforward, and deployment took five months.

We used an in-house team.

In order to use Selenium HQ comfortably, you need to be very strong on Java skills. I would give Selenium HQ a rating of seven out of ten.

We use it for test automation. We are also using Cypress for some of our automated tests. We've tried Selenium a little bit, but it depends on the project we are doing.

It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market.

I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more.

I have been using this solution for one year.

It is stable.

We have five people on the team, but not all of us are using it. We have plans to increase its usage.

It is not complex. I don't remember the time it took, but I do have development and testing experience. So, for me, it was an easy ramp-up.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate it a seven out of 10.

Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts.

I would like for the next release to support parallel testing.

We were using Micro Focus UFT which is for Windows application and used Selenium for web use. The two solutions are not comparable in my opinion because they both have their advantages and disadvantages.

The initial setup was straightforward. I was able to add the packages that I wanted and quickly get started with development in a day.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for automating a solution on the web and automating testing.

We are a testing company. We can automate testing using Selenium.

The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple. It's quite a user-friendly product.

The interface is great.

We've had good experiences dealing with support.

The pricing is fine.

Handling configurations is very good.

The stability has been good.

It's an easy product to set up and deploy.

If a company wants to scale it, it can. 

The product offers a free community edition. 

Selenium has problems with some objects. The objects are not in the squares of the screen. The layout can be a bit strange. It makes it hard to find objects.

We'd like to see some more image management in future releases. 

We've been using the solution for two years at this point. 

The stability is great. We haven't dealt with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance is good.

If you need to expand the solution, you can. We've never had an issue with scalability.

We have about seven people using the solution at this time. 

Technical support is great. They are helpful and responsive. We haven't had a problem with them.

The initial setup is not complex or hard to do. It's pretty simple and straightforward. A company shouldn't have any problem implementing it. 

We have found the pricing to be reasonable. It's not too high of a cost.

We are actually using the community edition, which is free. 

We are a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Selenium.

We have the solution deployed both on-premises and on the cloud. 

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with the product.