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."Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"The product is easy to use."
"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."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"To simplify the development process, everyone needs to do a Selenium Framework to acquire the web application functions and features from Selenium methods."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"The latest versions are often unstable."
"There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"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."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"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."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"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."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 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 Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Functionize and Testsigma. 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.
