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."Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"Data parametrization and parallelization are the most important features in any automation tool."
"I like its simplicity."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The performance and load testing are very 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 way it identifies elements is good."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"The reporting part can be better."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"Selenium could offer better ways to record and create scripts. IDE is available, however, it can be improved."
"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%."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"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."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"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."
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.