We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Telerik Test Studio 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 plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"It's not too complicated to implement."
"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."
"The solution is free to use."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"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."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"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."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support."
"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."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Telerik Test Studio is ranked 18th in Functional Testing Tools with 5 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Telerik Test Studio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Telerik Test Studio writes "Very good performance and load testing capabilities". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, OpenText Silk Test and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Telerik Test Studio is most compared with Ranorex Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca and Visual Studio Test Professional. See our Selenium HQ vs. Telerik Test Studio report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression 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.