We performed a comparison between LambdaTest and Selenium HQ 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 is the real-time testing, which helps you to test your website on more than two thousand combinations of browsers and operating systems."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable features are that it's essentially on-demand, and you only focus on getting the code that needs to be executed without having to worry about the OS, hardware, etc."
"The support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."
"Geolocation testing is as straightforward as ticking checkboxes of browsers, operating systems, and countries."
"The slow nature of a cloud platform was compensated with parallel testing, and now we are able to finish our testing job faster than it was before COVID."
"Without a doubt, LambdaTest is one of the big reasons behind our faster deployment and better team collaboration."
"The real devices feature is the most valuable feature for us."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"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 most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"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."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"Improvements on a platform need to happen on a timely basis...There should be some new features coming up or some performance improvisation over a period of time."
"Load flow compared to other stacks needs improvement."
"I think Lambdatest is a valuable tool for our team and things that have room for improvement would be mobile app testing, as it can be an important addition to the tool."
"Their smart testing module needs improvement."
"The scalability is good with Amazon, but IBM had some issues."
"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
"Mobile application testing would be helpful for us."
"Performing automation testing from UI is a little slow and could be improved."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"When we upgrade the version, some features are missing. I want the product to include some AI capabilities."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers. That's why it's not common for end-users, and especially for RPA activities or tasks. It's hard to automate tasks for end-users. If it will be easier, more user-friendly, and so on, perhaps it can be more interesting for this kind of user."
"The drawback is the solution is not easy to learn."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
"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."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 19 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. LambdaTest is rated 9.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of LambdaTest writes "Cost-effective, good integration, and parallel testing leads to good performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca and Perfecto, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our LambdaTest vs. Selenium HQ 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.
