We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Testim 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."Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems."
"The solution is free to use."
"Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"The product is easy to use."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"The latest versions are often unstable."
"I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"The reporting part can be better."
"Selenium HQ can improve by creating an enterprise version where it can provide the infrastructure for running the tests. Currently, we need to run the test in our infrastructure because it's a free tool. If Google can start an enterprise subscription and they can provide us with the infrastructure, such as Google Cloud infrastructure where we can configure it, and we can run the test there, it would be highly beneficial."
"I would like to see some reporting or test management tools."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"Selenium HQ doesn't support Windows-based applications, so we need to integrate with the third-party vendor. It would be great if Selenium could include Windows-based automation. You need to integrate it with a third-party tool if you want to upload any files. When we interact with a Windows application, we usually use Tosca."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Testim is ranked 17th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Testim is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Testim writes "A stable tool to help users take care of the implementation phases in their environment". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test, whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Functionize, Applitools and Ranorex Studio. See our Selenium HQ vs. Testim 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.
