We performed a comparison between OpenText Silk Test 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."The statistics that are available are very good."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It's not too complicated to implement."
"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"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."
"When we upgrade the version, some features are missing. I want the product to include some AI capabilities."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"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."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
Earn 20 points
OpenText Silk Test is ranked 26th in Functional Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. OpenText Silk Test is rated 7.6, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText Silk Test writes "Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". OpenText Silk Test is most compared with OpenText UFT One, OpenText UFT Developer, Apache JMeter, froglogic Squish and Katalon Studio, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA). See our OpenText Silk Test 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.