Selenium HQ Alternatives and Competitors

Get our free report covering Keysight Technologies, Tricentis, Worksoft, and other competitors of Selenium HQ. Updated: January 2021.
455,962 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Selenium HQ alternatives and competitors

Wayne Fisher
Global ERP Test Manager at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
Feb 11, 2019
Our automation tests are more robust than our manual tests

What is our primary use case?

We use Worksoft Certify to test our SAP System. We have a global instance of SAP, which we started implementing in 2012, and we are still in the process of implementing. We have rolled out SAP to about 80 percent of our manufacturing and distribution. Right now, the remaining projects are a small distribution center and sales offices. We have ongoing projects, and three times a year, we release a new version of SAP. We rolled out SAP to a new geography, and we also added new features for our business users. Thus, as part of those projects, we use Certify to do regression testing of our… more »

Pros and Cons

  • "If we write a new test that's 80 percent the same as an existing test, it is pretty straightforward to reuse the steps from existing tests for our new tests and build upon them."
  • "One feature that we have been asking for has been to treat tests as code and store the source code for tests in a configuration management tool. Right now, for version control of testing, it's all internally within the tool. If we have a test of a business process and want to revive that test, our methodology now is purely manual work. We go into the tool, create a copy of the existing test, and call the next one: v2. Now, we have two of them and the only way you can tell them apart is by its naming convention."

What other advice do I have?

The technical instrumentation was pretty straightforward. The tool does what we need it to do. The primary challenges that we have had with test automation have been change management, getting the old, greater IT organization to accept automation as a substitute for manual testing. Culturally, within our organization, we put a lot of pressure on our business analysts to thoroughly test the application, and if they have never used automation before, there is a fear factor there saying, "I'm responsible. Then, I want to see it with my own two eyes." I recommend expanding, training, and coaching…
TestMana6b72
Research & Development Engineer at a insurance company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Aug 25, 2019
Helps to determine problem areas but it has many problems and limitations

What is our primary use case?

We use UFT Pro for all user testing platforms. We use the standard installation but we use UFT in two models. One is used for testing all functionalities in our environment and the second is one we are developing to use as a solution to test the availability of the environment in production. So UFT will check out the performance of the production environment every 12 minutes to be sure that the entire environment is stable. If we don't have any problem, the information is stored in a database and we do a BVD (Bank Vault Drawer) analysis of the information in the database for checking all… more »

Pros and Cons

  • "It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
  • "It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."

What other advice do I have?

I prefer other products like Selenium to UFT, but each product has its advantages. For example, in UFT we can test HTML protocol for the web applications and also desktop applications. Selenium is for web applications only. That is its limitation. If you have to test both and want to install only one product, UFT has an advantage. Because of all the problems and limitations of the UTF product, I would rate it at only a four out of ten (where ten is the best and one is the worst). By comparison, I would give Selenium an eight out of ten. You can see I think UFT is not my favorite product and it…
MohamedSoliman
Software QA Automation Engineer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Consultant
Jul 21, 2020
Powerful automation testing capabilities with an easy to use and well organized interface

What is our primary use case?

We are primarily using this product as an automation tool, for regression, and as a revision tool.

Pros and Cons

  • "This tool is very easy to use and I think that anyone can come in, having no experience with it, and within four to six months be comfortable with it."
  • "I would like to see better integration with other testing tools."

What other advice do I have?

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to make use of the extensive library that they have. It is a good collection of training videos and documentation, and I would advise everybody to go through these materials. They are really helpful and it will allow them to learn much faster, bringing them to the point where they can use it to its full potential. In summary, I am really comfortable with this tool, I haven't had many problems, and it's sufficient for our work. In the three years that I have been working with it, whenever I've needed something, I've been able to find it…
Vishwa-Reddy
Test Automation Eng Senior Analyst at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Jul 3, 2020
Powerful analysis using artificial intelligence, easy-to-develop automation, and we can develop negative API test cases

What is our primary use case?

Micro Focus UFT is a very good tool for testing purposes. We use it primarily for API testing.

Pros and Cons

  • "This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
  • "One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."

What other advice do I have?

My advice to anybody who is considering this product is that it integrates well into your environment, is easy to use, easy to maintain, and makes your development efforts more efficient. The entire development chain, including smoke tests, will be improved. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
RameshVelusamy
Programmer at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Consultant
Jan 7, 2020
Built-in support for testing C# and .NET is helpful in our continuous integration development process

What is our primary use case?

I use Visual Studio Test Professional for C# and Java. Within our continuous integration environment, our testing using this solution includes running a script that takes about ten minutes. At work, I use the paid version but at home, I use the Community Edition.

Pros and Cons

  • "The most valuable feature is the in-built support for C# and .NET projects."
  • "We would like to be able to easily integrate this solution with our continuous integration tools, such as Jenkins."

What other advice do I have?

We are only using test scripts, which involves a minimal number of the features that are provided. We have also recommended this solution to some of our clients. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
Get our free report covering Keysight Technologies, Tricentis, Worksoft, and other competitors of Selenium HQ. Updated: January 2021.
455,962 professionals have used our research since 2012.