We performed a comparison between Fortify Software Security Center and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Testing (AST)."The reporting is very useful because you can always view an entire list of the issues that you have."
"This is a stable solution at the end of the day."
"You can easily download the tool's rule packs and update them."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"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."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"The solution is very easy to implement."
"Fortify Software Security Center's setup is really painful."
"We are having issues with false positives that need to be resolved."
"This solution is difficult to implement, and it should be made more comfortable for the end-users."
"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."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"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%."
More Fortify Software Security Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortify Software Security Center is ranked 27th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 3 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Fortify Software Security Center is rated 7.4, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Fortify Software Security Center writes "A fair-priced solution that helps with application security testing ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". Fortify Software Security Center is most compared with Fortify on Demand, Tricentis Tosca and Fortify WebInspect, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Telerik Test Studio, Worksoft Certify, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText Silk Test.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.