Compare Selenium HQ vs. Silk Test

Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 5 reviews while Silk Test is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 3 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 9.0, while Silk Test is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "BrowserStack and Sauce Labs work with it. It also can work with most of programming languages". 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, Eggplant Functional and Katalon Studio, 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
16,994 views|13,907 comparisons
Silk Test Logo
5,173 views|3,640 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Selenium HQ vs. Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: September 2019.
371,355 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.

Read more »

The feature I like most is the ease of reporting.The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature.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.

Read more »

The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve.They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration.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.

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.
371,355 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
4th
Views
16,994
Comparisons
13,907
Reviews
5
Average Words per Review
348
Avg. Rating
9.0
16th
Views
5,173
Comparisons
3,640
Reviews
3
Average Words per Review
628
Avg. Rating
7.3
Top Comparisons
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 22% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 16% 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%
Software R&D Company13%
Comms Service Provider13%
Manufacturing Company13%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company25%
Financial Services Firm17%
Comms Service Provider13%
Manufacturing Company9%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company51%
Comms Service Provider15%
Insurance Company11%
Retailer5%
Find out what your peers are saying about Selenium HQ vs. Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: September 2019.
371,355 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