We performed a comparison between HeadSpin 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."It has an interesting feature called AV box testing. A lot of companies that are in the OTT segment don't really understand what their streaming is like. They can't test for streaming quality. There are restrictions where you cannot simulate live streaming. For example, on Netflix, you can't simulate how a movie is being streamed on a remote device. That's why HeadSpin has got this AV box testing feature. It is a patented feature. They send an AV box to your location, and you can test live streaming, which is something that no other company does."
"The most valuable feature of HeadSpin it's the integration with other solutions. It is great. I can search for an element or do a quick debugging on the application right on HeadSpin. It's very useful."
"The most valuable feature is that this is the first connected intelligence all-in-one platform."
"The most valuable features of the product are the performance parameters it gives us."
"The initial setup of HeadSpin was very easy and user-friendly. It was easy to configure and write a script."
"The technical support is really helpful because we can set up direct calls with them if we want to. We can use Zoom or Google Meet to interact with them directly, and if there is an issue in our system, they will help us by reproducing the issue in their machines and trying to figure out a solution. The support is really smooth, and we like that they're very supportive."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."
"The solution is free to use."
"The tool is easy to use and log in with respect to other tools. It is open-source. We can customize the product. I also like its security."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"HeadSpin needs to improve the hardware. With the mobile, the battery life reduces and must be continuously charged."
"If you want to do some testing or check the devices manually or check the application in a particular device manually, it is really laggy. That's a disappointment because sometimes we would like to do manual testing when our local devices are not available."
"They should automate their onboarding. A lot of things are still manual. They can create a video assistant or something like that to completely automate the entire process."
"Sometimes, devices go offline and some features are not functioning on some devices, specifically on iOS."
"Support and pricing could be improved."
"HeadSpin could improve on the user interface because it is very poor. The checks that are done on the iOS devices are very difficult, but for Android, it runs great. For all iOS devices, the user interface and how it interacts with the device are very poor."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
HeadSpin is ranked 20th in Functional Testing Tools with 6 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. HeadSpin is rated 8.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of HeadSpin writes "It fulfills everything from automation to manual performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". HeadSpin is most compared with Perfecto, BrowserStack, Sauce Labs and pCloudy, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA). See our HeadSpin vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Functional 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.