We performed a comparison between Bitbar and Selenium HQ 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."Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"What I like about Selenium HQ is that we wrote it ourselves. I think it's perfect. It's a framework that you can use to devise your own products, which is nice."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"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's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
Earn 20 points
Bitbar is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Bitbar writes "It's helped me when I've been short of devices and want to test whether the application will work on a specific device or not". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, Sauce Labs, CrossBrowserTesting and LambdaTest, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA). See our Bitbar vs. Selenium HQ 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.