Selenium HQ Reviews

the primary use cases of this solution are UI regression testing and API automation testing.

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 solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs.

I have been using the solution for four years.

This solution is the most stable product I have used when it comes to web automation.

This solution has no scalability limits.

The initial setup is easy, like a walk in the park for any user.

I implemented the solution in-house.

The solution is open source.

Before choosing the solution I evaluated Cypress and Postman. 

I give this solution nine out of ten.

When it comes to UI testing this solution is perfect but for API automation it lags behind compared to Postman.

Around 70 percent of our engineers use this solution on a daily basis.

Since the solution is open source you can create a user account on GitHub and receive free community-based technical support when it is required.

I use Selenium HQ to create automated scripts for automated applications.

Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages.

I rate Selenium HQ a nine out of ten for stability.

I rate Selenium HQ a nine out of ten for scalability.

The level of ease to set up Selenium HQ is medium. You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup.

Selenium HQ is a free, open-source solution.

Selenium HQ is deployed on-cloud in our organization.

Overall, I rate Selenium HQ a nine out of ten.

We use Selenium HQ for the automation of functional test cases.

The tool is easy to use and log in with respect to other tools. It is open-source. We can customize the product. I also like its security.  

When we upgrade the version, some features are missing. I want the product to include some AI capabilities. 

I have been using the product for 11 years. 

Selenium HQ is very stable. 

The solution is scalable, and we have around 9,000 users for the product. 

The tool's support is good, and they resolve issues nicely. 

Positive

I have been using the open-source version. 

You need to be aware of Selenium HQ's architecture. I rate it a ten out of ten. 

We are using a framework for Selenium HQ, which is behavior-driven. We have some features, such as login features. We write in normal English and the steps are converted into programming. We have one more feature in step definition, which connects both the feature file and step definition. In step definition, we write the program.

The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful.

Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution.

I have been using Selenium HQ for approximately one year.

Selenium HQ is stable.

There are multiple people using Selenium HQ in my organization.

I have not used the support from Selenium HQ.

We have used other solutions previously but we chose Selenium HQ because it supports multiple browsers. If you want to check on multiple browsers using the same script, we don't have to change anything.

Selenium HQ was not difficult to set up. We can use management tools allowing us the ability to directly add dependency without having to install Selenium HQ.

Selenium HQ is a free solution.

I would recommend this solution to others if they have short projects or short-term goals, where you do not have to automate. If we have only one month for testing, we should not automate it first. If we want to automate web applications, Selenium HQ is the best tool because it supports multiple languages, browsers, and operating systems, and it's open-source.

There are multiple features the solution has that I haven't worked on.

I rate Selenium HQ a six out of ten.

We are using SeleniumHQ for automating the test scripts.

What I like the most is that it is fast. When comparing, it faster than HQ QTP.

It supports multiple processes, which is great.

Just by changing a line of code, it will work with multiple processes.

The locating of web elements is a complex process where you require the WebDriver application and create a locator by using  By Class. They are not always matching.

It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements.

Another negative point is that you cannot delete the application, you can only delete the web application.

I have been using this solution for six months.

This solution has been stable. We have not experienced any issues with bugs or glitches.

Selenium HQ does not offer proper support. As a free solution, it doesn't offer proper support. You have to search for some blogs.

The initial setup was fine. It didn't seem to be complex.

The difficulty was with the web interface and finding the objects. I have to inspect elements and this times time.

I am still in training but will improve in the next few months.

It's an open-source tool that you can work with at any time without any cost.

I am at the beginner's level, working alone to get some more practice. It will take some time to have more experience with this solution.

Micro Focus is more user-friendly, and they offer paid support.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We mainly use HQ for UI automation and some of the main functions of test cases. We are customers of Selenium. 

The best thing about the product is that it is open-source and free, which is why we opted for it. It's also customizable which is great for us. There is a lot of online assistance available in forums and support on the Stack overflow. HQ is continually updated and supported by Selenium. You can write your own scripts without needing to depend on what's already there. The UI is automation friendly. When there's a slow network and an older application, the waves get very flaky and Selenium can handle that. Setting up and working with Chrome and Firefox is easy on Selenium.

The solution is intended for browser automation so it's not a support testing tool and there are no features. I'd like to see some flavors of test case management available that don't require any additions and there could be some improvement in the fluid-based area as well. Selenium is meant for developers but QA people cannot write test cases very easily on it. If you don't have a development background, it's tough. 

I've been using this solution for eight years. 

We had a few stability issues initially but it's very stable now.

The product is scalable. We have around 40 to 50 QA users in the company. 

We reported a few bugs on Selenium and they were resolved. The support was mediocre. Because it's open source there's not much support available.

The initial setup is easy but it requires certain development skills to set up. Without that, it's not easy. The difficulty is in creating a framework and that requires thinking about the maintainability and scalability aspects.

We went with Selenium for several reasons; it's open source and free, they provide a lot of support, and we can use Java technology which Selenium has available. Other tools generally don't provide perpetual licenses.

It's important to get hands-on experience with the program. I would also suggest getting your frame pyramid in order. You need to decide on the language you're going to use and have that programming language support in your organization and decide which other tools you're going to use. Also, think of your application and whether Selenium is the appropriate solution.  

This is the most widely used tool throughout the world in this space. It has so much support available and is a benchmark for other tools so I rate the solution eight out of 10.

I'm using Selenium for low-budget projects, small projects, and mostly medium projects. I don't use it for anything on a large scale because it has some limitations. I'm also restricted by the level of knowledge and technicality of the people I can find on the market.

The solution can be deployed on-premise or on a private cloud. We mostly do on-premise installations. We always use the latest version.

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. It's much lower in costs. I can do isolated projects or limited term projects. In projects where I have one shop testing, for example, government institutions or different kinds of projects where they test only once and then perhaps they continue or not, then Selenium is a good choice.

In projects where I don't have any budget and I need automation quickly, I will go to Selenium. Being free is an advantage, and it's almost at the level of professional end-license tools. It's like buying a very expensive car, like a Porsche, compared to an ordinary car. They both move forward, and you get to your destination.

I'm based in Romania, and we have a personal crisis. We do not have enough resources or enough people to employ and hire. So, I'm hiring whoever I find, and they don't always have enough technical knowledge to operate Selenium.

I've been using Selenium for about four years. 

I'm a partner and a reseller. I'm also a training provider for Selenium. We have a course which is internationally accredited and we deliver it regularly on Selenium.

It's extremely stable.

It's difficult to scale with Selenium. I would say, yes, but with a little bit of doubt, because I have to install many other products on top of it and that requires technical knowledge and time.

It is less scalable than Micro Focus. Micro Focus comes like an already made package to be scaled from a small company to an enterprise. For Selenium, I have to work on it and develop some additional things, configurations, integrations, etc.

It's an open-source tool, so there is no technical support. But there is a lot of documentation on the internet. If you study on your own, you can learn Selenium from top to bottom.

I have also worked with Micro Focus.

Unfortunately, I find it difficult. I am a nontechnical person and each time I set up Selenium, I need to read a little bit of documentation. There are too many integrations with different tools.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

My advice for those who want to start using this solution is to analyze the project very well and choose the right tool for the project. For small projects, choose Selenium. It's the best option.

I have led regression testing projects involving CRM, employee registration, and eCommerce. In each of these test cases, we have used the automation tool which has brought us benefits in time savings, shortening schedules, or recovering lost time - all of this leading to money savings. 

It's very useful when there are constant changes in the back-end. If the changes are constant in the source end it is not a good idea to use it. It is very important to previously evaluate the use of the tool depending on the characteristics.

The main improvement is the lower cost of regression tests. It will probably be more expensive in the first iteration (more or less 30%), however, we can save up to 40% or 50% in the next runs. 

Another benefit is that, once the test scripts have been built, it is not necessary for the person executing the test processes to be an expert, allowing resources and costs to be optimized with lower costs in human talent. 

In addition, the barrier of functional knowledge is eliminated; specialization is not necessary during the life cycle of the tests.

The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free.

Additionally, currently, you can find resources that handle the characteristics of the tool very well. 

The range of web platforms it supports is also wide, including the operating system platforms. It is possible to reuse the test scenarios that have been built in iterations after the first one or in the improvements of the systems that are part of the normal maintenance and updating that must be done periodically and that imply an investment in tests.

A great improvement could be in the user experience which is necessary as it does not have much. The use is too technical; it is not designed for the end-user. The best way to maintain the test scenarios over time should be considered. If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely. This would ultimately mean that it would reflect the possible benefits in the projects and, on the contrary, the use of the solution ends up being more expensive.

I have been working with Selenium for five years.

The latest version should always be treated with care. Being open-source it can be unstable.

The scalability will depend on where the tool is installed.

Until now, I have not used the support service. Everything has been done using the documentation that is registered in the forums.

Neutral

In the past, I used a very good solution. However, it had a high cost and had to be used by more than one resource.

The initial setup can be very complex.

In my case, the initial setup was done internally.

The ROI can be between 20% to 50% in the testing process in the medium and long term. In the short term, it can be 10% or less.

As for the license, there is not much to say. It is free, however, the configuration must be done correctly or it can be very expensive.

Other options that I evaluated were TestComplete, Kathalon, and IBM.

It must be evaluated very well before being used. In my case, we implemented a front-end that facilitates the use. If you want to use it in the future I can give you some access.