We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Testim 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 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."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"It is a good automation tool."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"I like its simplicity."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"The product is easy to use."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"When we upgrade the version, some features are missing. I want the product to include some AI capabilities."
"We do not have enough resources or enough people to employ and hire. So, I'm hiring whoever I find, and they don't always have enough technical knowledge to operate Selenium."
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
"Sometimes we face challenges with Selenium HQ. There are third party tools that we use, for example for reading the images, that are not easy to plug in. The third party add-ons are difficult to get good configuration and do not have good support. I would like to see better integration with other products."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Testim is ranked 17th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Testim is rated 9.2. 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 Testim writes "A stable tool to help users take care of the implementation phases in their environment". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test, whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Functionize, Testsigma and Ranorex Studio. See our Selenium HQ vs. Testim 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.