What is our primary use case?
In my company, I use the tool for testing web browsers.
We basically use the product for two things. The first is for testing for a website. The other thing is for repeating actions so that you can repeat the same action over and over with ease and without having to repeat the original steps.
What is most valuable?
The solution is free to use. It's open-source, and you can modify the source.
You can use it on different platforms, including Windows, Linux, or macOS.
It's easy to find and receive help from other developers. There is a good community that surrounds it.
The solution has been very stable so far.
What needs improvement?
Sometimes it's difficult to understand the solution. It's a good solution, however, it has many specific things you need to know, or you need to learn about. For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use. You have to know how to program. You need to be a developer.
The tool has two steps: first, when you record, and second when you play back. However, in the middle, you need to look at a file. You need to save a file and after that look at them. It would be ideal if the solution allowed for the process to be one step and more automatic.
The initial setup is quite complex.
For how long have I used the solution?
I've been using the solution for maybe two years or so at this point. It's been a while.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The stability of the solution is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I've never tried to scale the solution, however, it's my understanding that it is possible. On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate the potential to scale at a six or seven.
The tool is open source. Typically, when something is a commercial solution, there is more of a possibility of being scalable. We depend on other developers to grow the tool.
Last year, we only had two people on the tool. However, this year, I want to grow that number to about ten. They are all engineers. Of the team, 80% would be quality engineers and 20% would be developers.
How are customer service and technical support?
I don't use Selenium technical support. As an open-source tool, you need to go to the community and the forums.
Typically, you can find your answers pretty quickly. You can ask the community as well, and usually, someone gets back to you pretty fast.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I also use SmartBear. Selenium only works for web browsers, and sometimes I need to check an application. When that is the case, I cannot use Selenium, and I instead use SmartBear.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup is not straightforward. It's pretty complex.
It's complex due to the fact that you need to download a complement for the web browser and you need to recall the tests and you have to load the files. When you do a recall, the tools create a file with the steps. Before you need to playback, you need to load the file. It's not easy. You need to know some things about the tool.
The deployment took maybe six months to possibly 10 months.
You only need one person for deployment and maintenance.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The solution is open-source and free to use. There are no licensing costs.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We did look at Katalon Studio before ultimately choosing Selenium HQ.
The principle difference is Katalon is one solution. You can't change the functionalities in the solution. It's also complex to use and demands a lot of memory. You need a lot of RAM or a big processor. It just takes up too many resources.
What other advice do I have?
We are just a customer and end-user.
I'm not sure which version number we're using. However, it is a version from 2020, from the last year or so.
I'd advise those considering the solution, if you want use SeleniumHQ, it's a good option if you have good developers that understand the tool and can make changes in the tool. If you have the right people on hand, it works very, very well.
I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. If it didn't need such technical expertise, I might rate it higher.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?