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."It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"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."
"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 grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"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."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"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."
"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."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"The product is easy to use."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
"When we upgrade the version, some features are missing. I want the product to include some AI capabilities."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
"It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line."
"The login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ"
"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"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."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"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."
"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."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"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 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.