We chose to use Selenium HQ based on our customer needs and costs.

We were doing a proof of concept to see which tools we could start using for our team.

The bank chose Selenium HQ because it's open-source. It's scalable and we can extend it as needed. That's why we decided to use it.

We evaluated Tricentis Tosca and it was expensive and Selenium HQ is free. This is why we choose Selenium HQ.

Before choosing the solution I evaluated Cypress and Postman. 

We went with Selenium for several reasons; it's open source and free, they provide a lot of support, and we can use Java technology which Selenium has available. Other tools generally don't provide perpetual licenses.

Other options that I evaluated were TestComplete, Kathalon, and IBM.

We evaluated other options. 

For mobile scraping, non-mobile scraping, or to test anything mobile there are more applications available on the internet, like Appium for Android, which is like Selenium for browsers, or TestComplete for iOS drivers. 

However, Selenium is particularly the best for browsers or PC, operating systems.

We have had extensive experience in testing and have pretty much worked with most testing solutions. Therefore, we did not have to go in for a re-evaluation. Our choice was clear. 

Ours is a web application and, considering my experience with other tools, our choice was easier. We did try Protractor and Jasmine, however Protractor is also based on Selenium. It works better with angular pages. For us, Selenium was enough and we want to use FitNesse.

We are currently evaluating functional testing tools, both manual and automation testing.

We are looking for codeless automation with support for codeless automation.

In my evaluations, I have seen that some are tools are lacking.

We tried MicroFocus UFT and we also evaluated Tosca. These are the two tools we evaluated along with HQ but we felt Selenium HQ was better for us.

The overall need for this project was that we were supposed to integrate across multiple technologies. When we started this project two years back we had to use API and a UI database. We were not allowed to use a lot of technologies. So we realized it would not be easy with other tools to combine three technologies in the same place since it's a different structure. This was not possible with UFT or Tosca. So that was one of the biggest reasons we chose Selenium HQ, because the whole project depended on that kind of a flow.

Additionally, there was the licensing issue. It was pretty costly at Tosca and MicroFocus UFT, whereas Selenium HQ is all open source and has a very good community support. So I think these are the two reasons we chose it.

We have not evaluated any other options.

Ranorex, Sahi, TestComplete, TestWhizz, QF-Test, WatiR, Squish, CodedUI

I have evaluated other solutions.

We did look at Katalon Studio before ultimately choosing Selenium HQ.

The principle difference is Katalon is one solution. You can't change the functionalities in the solution. It's also complex to use and demands a lot of memory. You need a lot of RAM or a big processor. It just takes up too many resources. 

We have just completed a PoC with Eggplant and we prefer it because they have support for testing desktop applications.

When evaluating other solutions, such as Micro Focus, their price was not reasonable for our needs.

We conducted a PoC using UiPath for RPA. We are planning to try using Tricentis Tosca for codeless automation. We are continuing with our evaluation and ultimately, want to find the best tool.

Compared to commercial tools such as TestComplete, Selenium WebDriver is a better choice for web auto-testing. It allows us to write frameworks using object-oriented programming languages like Java.

Yes, Sahi Pro was on the list.

It’s open source and free.

We tried HP UFT, but did did not like the speed, and IDE. Also, there was no choice of programming language, it's not free, and a lot harder to maintain.