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."In case something goes wrong at LambdaTest end, the Support team is extremely responsive to analyze any platform-related issues."
"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."
"The real devices feature is the most valuable feature for us."
"Stability-wise, I have not experienced any downtime or other performance issues."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Without a doubt, LambdaTest is one of the big reasons behind our faster deployment and better team collaboration."
"This product offers out-of-the-box geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"The Docker tunnel integration for local testing can be extremely useful to run on multiple instances in parallel."
"Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"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 initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"My customer previously validated every file and it would take almost 15-20 minutes for a document. They used to randomly select and test only 100 out of the thousands, maybe 85,000, files, to pick up sampling. Each file would take around 20 to 25 minutes, so we were not able to do it manually, but with the help of Selenium, we were able to test all the files in two days. It saves a lot of time."
"I feel that the automated screenshot testing takes a little longer on MacOS sometimes."
"LambdaTest needs to have native application testing, which would be a great help to my team."
"It would be much easier for us to read the test if they provided dashboard analytics."
"Their smart testing module needs improvement."
"The analytics over the automation dashboard can be more intuitive."
"It would be nice to have an API for visual regression testing."
"The scalability is good with Amazon, but IBM had some issues."
"If possible to simulate the finger pinch, it would make it more realistic."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"Selenium is good when the team is really technical because Selenium does less built-in methods. If it came with more built-in and pre-built methods it would be even easier for less technical people to work with it. That's where I think the improvement can be."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"Sometimes we face challenges with Selenium HQ. There are third party tools that we use, for example for reading the images, that are not easy to plug in. The third party add-ons are difficult to get good configuration and do not have good support. I would like to see better integration with other products."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 18 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. LambdaTest is rated 9.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of LambdaTest writes "Cost-effective, good integration, and parallel testing leads to good performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Katalon Studio, Perfecto and Digital.ai Continuous Testing, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. 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.
