We performed a comparison between HeadSpin 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 of HeadSpin it's the integration with other solutions. It is great. I can search for an element or do a quick debugging on the application right on HeadSpin. It's very useful."
"The most valuable features of the product are the performance parameters it gives us."
"It has an interesting feature called AV box testing. A lot of companies that are in the OTT segment don't really understand what their streaming is like. They can't test for streaming quality. There are restrictions where you cannot simulate live streaming. For example, on Netflix, you can't simulate how a movie is being streamed on a remote device. That's why HeadSpin has got this AV box testing feature. It is a patented feature. They send an AV box to your location, and you can test live streaming, which is something that no other company does."
"The initial setup of HeadSpin was very easy and user-friendly. It was easy to configure and write a script."
"The technical support is really helpful because we can set up direct calls with them if we want to. We can use Zoom or Google Meet to interact with them directly, and if there is an issue in our system, they will help us by reproducing the issue in their machines and trying to figure out a solution. The support is really smooth, and we like that they're very supportive."
"The most valuable feature is that this is the first connected intelligence all-in-one platform."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution."
"Support and pricing could be improved."
"They should automate their onboarding. A lot of things are still manual. They can create a video assistant or something like that to completely automate the entire process."
"HeadSpin needs to improve the hardware. With the mobile, the battery life reduces and must be continuously charged."
"Sometimes, devices go offline and some features are not functioning on some devices, specifically on iOS."
"HeadSpin could improve on the user interface because it is very poor. The checks that are done on the iOS devices are very difficult, but for Android, it runs great. For all iOS devices, the user interface and how it interacts with the device are very poor."
"If you want to do some testing or check the devices manually or check the application in a particular device manually, it is really laggy. That's a disappointment because sometimes we would like to do manual testing when our local devices are not available."
"There are some synchronization issues"
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"Selenium HQ can improve by creating an enterprise version where it can provide the infrastructure for running the tests. Currently, we need to run the test in our infrastructure because it's a free tool. If Google can start an enterprise subscription and they can provide us with the infrastructure, such as Google Cloud infrastructure where we can configure it, and we can run the test there, it would be highly beneficial."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
HeadSpin is ranked 20th in Functional Testing Tools with 6 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. HeadSpin is rated 8.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of HeadSpin writes "It fulfills everything from automation to manual performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". HeadSpin is most compared with Perfecto, BrowserStack, Sauce Labs and pCloudy, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA). See our HeadSpin 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.