We performed a comparison between IBM DevOps Test UI 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 automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"The stability and performance are good."
"I believe Selenium HQ to be the best solution in the market for automating web applications"
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"Selenium HQ lets you create your customized functions with whatever language you want to use, like Python, Java, .NET, etc. You can integrate with Selenium and write."
"The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug."
"I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"The drawback is the solution is not easy to learn."
"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."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
IBM DevOps Test UI is ranked 22nd in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. IBM DevOps Test UI is rated 7.2, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM DevOps Test UI writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". IBM DevOps Test UI is most compared with Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, HCL OneTest, Worksoft Certify and OpenText UFT One, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and SmartBear TestComplete. See our IBM DevOps Test UI 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.