We performed a comparison between Catchpoint and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Nexthink, Lakeside Software, ControlUp and others in Digital Experience Monitoring (DEM)."Catchpoint provides a great amount of information."
"The drill-down feature of this product was very good. It allowed us to identify the exact page or area of the site that was causing our customers an issue."
"The solution offers three different ways of slicing data to look for abnormalities."
"Catchpoint helped us establish that something is in a provider network, so we could tell our customers to check their internet provider because the traffic is not getting to us. You need to be gentle when you tell them that, but the fact that we could do it was crucial."
"The thing I like most is the tech support in this company, because they have 24/7 chat support. We can chat immediately and ask them about an issue and they keep responding. They create tickets on our behalf and respond."
"Catchpoint's customer service and support are valuable."
"The most valuable features of Catchpoint are basically the transaction monitors on the API and UI."
"We really need the API monitoring, as well as client side session monitoring, the global synthetic monitoring, to track the availability of the systems from the customer side."
"The solution is free to use."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"I believe Selenium HQ to be the best solution in the market for automating web applications"
"Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits."
"I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"There are essentially a lot of quotas. Nobody wants to sit and manually create monitors for someone who uses synthetic monitoring."
"It would be great if Catchpoint could incorporate its alerting system instead of relying on separate tools like ServiceNow."
"A large selection of nodes are available but it is a challenge to test reliably in China and the Middle East."
"The old user version was better, it was more user-friendly."
"A room for improvement in Catchpoint is that it lacks an automated page updating feature. My company receives all the alerts and notifications it needs, but the page doesn't update automatically. You need to manually refresh the page, so every five minutes you need to refresh it to see the most updated information. If there's an automated page refresh feature, that would help my company. It's a feature that Grafana has. The page auto-refreshes in Grafana, so you don't have to manually refresh the page. If that feature is implemented in Catchpoint, it'll be useful for the users. Another area for improvement in the tool is you have to do a manual task, for example, when you have a notification for a market, you get a zip code that the user could have entered, but if the zip code is incorrect, you have to manually go into Catchpoint and update that parameter, so that manual step is another area in the tool that needs improvement."
"We would like the script creation feature of this solution to be improved, as it currently requires a complicated manual process to update the scripts."
"There's still too much manual involvement in getting customized test configurations out there. It's good, but it still takes a lot of effort. In other words, it's when you need to configure it to collect a specific variable and that kind of thing."
"Trending needs improvement. Currently, out-of-the-box, they provide only seven days availability. So, we have to do queries and we have to go into a separate analysis module, we have to run lot of queries to long-term trends."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"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."
"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."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
Catchpoint is ranked 5th in Digital Experience Monitoring (DEM) with 12 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. Catchpoint is rated 8.2, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Catchpoint writes "The UI is well designed, so it's easy to get the visibility you want". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". Catchpoint is most compared with Dynatrace, ThousandEyes, Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security and New Relic, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA).
We monitor all Digital Experience Monitoring (DEM) 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.