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 feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"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."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"It's easy for new people to get trained on this solution. If we are hiring new people, the resource pool in the market in test automation is largely around Selenium."
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"For me, the most valuable feature of Selenium lies in its ability to help us find elements quickly. Apart from that, the driver interface is really useful, too. When we implement the Selenium driver interface, we can easily navigate through all of the pages and sections of an app, including performing things like clicking, putting through SendKeys, scrolling down, tagging, and all the other actions we need to test for in an application."
"The stability and performance are good."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"The product is easy to use."
"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."
"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 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."
"If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting."
"One drawback to Selenium is that there is nothing like an object repository, such as that found in QTP, especially considering continuous integration practices that have become common nowadays."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"The drawback is the solution is not easy to learn."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"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."
"In the beginning, we had issues with several test cases failing during regression. Over a period of time, we built our own framework around Selenium which helped us overcome of these issues."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"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."
"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 product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"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."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"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.