We performed a comparison between Panaya Test Dynamix 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."Test migration from HPE are done automatically. We can extract our tests from HPE, and they convert it into the Panaya format."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to copy the scenarios and as we do a rollout we can efficiently complete test three and put it somewhere else under a new subsidiary."
"The test repository to follow the test progress is most valuable because we can easily create and manage a huge number of test scripts. We can copy and paste, replicate, and drag and drop many tests scripts. We can create test scripts en masse. When you have a high volume of tests, the tool is quite useful. It works well when you want to manage a lot of tests, such as you have 1,000 or more test scripts."
"Provides better monitoring for testing campaigns and business process testing."
"The initial setup was not complex and the product itself is very easy to configure and use."
"It is easy for business users to use who are not familiar with testing tools."
"I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"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 has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"It is very stable."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"It would be nice to be able to test offline. What I mean by that is today most of the time things are in the cloud, but sometimes when we are in factories and we do not have network access and we should be able to download a test script into our PCs and do the test offline. Once that is complete we can re-upload it when we have a network connection."
"The setup of Panaya Recorder is a bit complex. Panaya is a SaaS application, but you need to install some components on your computer. You need to set up your computer to allow Panaya Recorder to work. There are five or six things to do each time you install Panaya for any user. If you miss something, Panaya Recorder doesn't work. So, it is complex to install."
"Support is reactive and in English only."
"They provide options for custom fields or tabs, but customization of workflows would be great."
"To simplify the development process, everyone needs to do a Selenium Framework to acquire the web application functions and features from Selenium methods."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
"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."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"Selenium HQ doesn't support Windows-based applications, so we need to integrate with the third-party vendor. It would be great if Selenium could include Windows-based automation. You need to integrate it with a third-party tool if you want to upload any files. When we interact with a Windows application, we usually use Tosca."
Panaya Test Dynamix is ranked 23rd in Functional Testing Tools with 4 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. Panaya Test Dynamix is rated 8.6, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Panaya Test Dynamix writes "More than reliable, with satisfied results for our needs, and excellent testing options". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". Panaya Test Dynamix is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Tricentis qTest, Worksoft Certify, OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA). See our Panaya Test Dynamix 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.