We performed a comparison between Bitbar and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Ability to use different frameworks."
"Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"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."
"It is a good automation tool."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
Earn 20 points
Bitbar is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Bitbar writes "It's helped me when I've been short of devices and want to test whether the application will work on a specific device or not". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, Sauce Labs, CrossBrowserTesting and LambdaTest, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test.
See our list of best Functional 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.