We performed a comparison between Bitbar 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."Ability to use different frameworks."
"Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"The stability and performance are good."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Sometimes we face challenges with Selenium HQ. There are third party tools that we use, for example for reading the images, that are not easy to plug in. The third party add-ons are difficult to get good configuration and do not have good support. I would like to see better integration with other products."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"It would be awesome if there was a standalone implementation of Selenium for non-developer users."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
Earn 20 points
Bitbar is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 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 "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". 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 Automation Anywhere (AA). See our Bitbar vs. Selenium HQ report.
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.