We performed a comparison between LambdaTest 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."It is a scalable solution."
"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."
"LambdaTest is easy to use, and the documentation provides all the needed information."
"The real devices feature is the most valuable feature for us."
"The most valuable features are that it's essentially on-demand, and you only focus on getting the code that needs to be executed without having to worry about the OS, hardware, etc."
"The solution is very easy to understand and has a user-friendly UI."
"Stability-wise, I have not experienced any downtime or other performance issues."
"This product offers out-of-the-box geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"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."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"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."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"LambdaTest needs to have native application testing, which would be a great help to my team."
"You cannot perform native-app testing, as they offer simulation for web testing only."
"Mobile application testing would be helpful for us."
"Load flow compared to other stacks needs improvement."
"Improvements on a platform need to happen on a timely basis...There should be some new features coming up or some performance improvisation over a period of time."
"The analytics over the automation dashboard can be more intuitive."
"It would be nice to have an API for visual regression testing."
"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"The reporting part can be better."
"Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%."
LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 22 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. LambdaTest is rated 8.8, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of LambdaTest writes "Technical support should be improved, though it has great documentation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio and Perfecto, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA). See our LambdaTest 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.