We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Digital Lab 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."The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."
"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."
"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."
"The product is easy to use."
"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."
"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"It's not too complicated to implement."
"Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."
"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."
"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."
"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."
"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."
"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."
"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"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."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
OpenText UFT Digital Lab is ranked 20th in Functional Testing Tools with 16 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. OpenText UFT Digital Lab is rated 7.4, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Digital Lab writes "Robust solution for application lifecycle management with numerous valuable features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". OpenText UFT Digital Lab is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Appium, Perfecto, AWS Device Farm 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 OpenText UFT Digital Lab 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.
