We performed a comparison between Bitbar and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"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."
"You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"It would be awesome if there was a standalone implementation of Selenium for non-developer users."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
Earn 20 points
Bitbar is ranked 26th in Functional Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Bitbar writes "It's helped me when I've been short of devices and want to test whether the application will work on a specific device or not". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, CrossBrowserTesting, Sauce Labs and LambdaTest, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test.
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.