Compare Selenium HQ vs. Silk Test

Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 10 reviews while Silk Test which is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.8, while Silk Test is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Provides Freedom To Choose The Tools Needed For Full-Fledged Automation Framework". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Silk Test writes "An easy to use interface with a recording feature that our business users are happy with". Selenium HQ is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio and UFT Pro (LeanFT), whereas Silk Test is most compared with UFT (QTP), LoadRunner and Selenium HQ. See our Selenium HQ vs. Silk Test report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Selenium HQ Logo
29,206 views|14,432 comparisons
Silk Test Logo
9,767 views|3,564 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Selenium HQ vs. Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: July 2019.
352,760 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud.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.Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only.It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages.It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only.It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc.Selenium web driver - Java.Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems.

Read more »

The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities.

Read more »

Cons
It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background.In the beginning, we had issues with several test cases failing during regression. Over a period of time, we built our own framework around Selenium which helped us overcome of these issues.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%.It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly.​To simplify the development process, everyone needs to do a Selenium Framework to acquire the web application functions and features from Selenium methods.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.Handling frames and windows needs to be improved.There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support.

Read more »

The support for automation with iOS applications can be better.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
This product is open source and free. That was a huge deciding factor for us getting into it.It is free.Since it is an open source. It is free to use. However my company see it as the future of load testing.It's open-source, so there's no need to pay for a license.There is no pricing cost. License is Apache License 2.0.It is free to use.

Read more »

Our licensing fees are on a yearly basis, and while I think that the price is quite reasonable I am not allowed to share those details.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
352,760 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
5th
Views
29,206
Comparisons
14,432
Reviews
10
Average Words per Review
343
Avg. Rating
8.7
14th
Views
9,767
Comparisons
3,564
Reviews
2
Average Words per Review
747
Avg. Rating
7.5
Top Comparisons
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 21% of the time.
Compared 19% of the time.
Compared 15% of the time.
Also Known As
SeleniumHQSegue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test, Silk Performer
Learn
SeleniumHQ
Video Not Available
Micro Focus
Overview

Selenium HQ is a suite of tools to automate web browsers across many platforms. Selenium runs in many browsers and operating systems and can be controlled by many programming languages and testing frameworks. Selenium consist of two types:

  1. Selenium WebDriver - create robust, browser-based regression automation suites & tests and scale & distribute scripts across many environments.
  2. Selenium IDE - create quick bug reproduction scripts and create scripts to aid in automation-aided exploratory testing.
SilkTest is robust and portable test automation for web, native, and enterprise software applications. Silk Test's portability enables users to test applications more effectively with lower complexity and cost in comparison to other functional testing tools on the market. Silk Test's role based testing enables business stakeholders, QA engineers, and developers to contribute to the whole automation testing process, which drives collaboration and increases the effectiveness of software testing.
Offer
Learn more about Selenium HQ
Learn more about Silk Test
Sample Customers
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear SoftwareKrung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Retailer20%
Manufacturing Company13%
Software R&D Company13%
Comms Service Provider13%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm39%
Comms Service Provider11%
Manufacturing Company10%
Insurance Company7%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Selenium HQ vs. Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: July 2019.
352,760 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.
Sign Up with Email