We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting 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."The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."
"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"When I started to work on testing automation, I was very excited about how easy it is to run tests on different browsers. It was just a matter of configuration."
"The extensive range of products available to simulate is something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests."
"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."
"The screen shot portal is essential for an easy way to run tests across hundreds of browsers and retrieve screenshots which then indicate success or failure."
"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."
"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"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."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"A problem that we are facing quite often is related to the network connection. Tests can fail if the remote CrossBrowserTesting's VM has connection problems. This happens mostly with browsers of Internet Explorer family which work on Windows OS."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."
"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."
"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%."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem."
"We'd like to see some more image management in future releases."
"The reporting part can be better."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"The initial setup was difficult."
Earn 20 points
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Sauce Labs, 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.
