We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Telerik Test Studio 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 solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"I like its simplicity."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"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."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Telerik Test Studio is ranked 18th in Functional Testing Tools with 5 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Telerik Test Studio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Telerik Test Studio writes "Very good performance and load testing capabilities". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, OpenText Silk Test and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Telerik Test Studio is most compared with Ranorex Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca and Visual Studio Test Professional. See our Selenium HQ vs. Telerik Test Studio report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression 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.