No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Selenium HQ vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
5th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Telerik Test Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
27th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
15th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (11th), Test Automation Tools (23rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Selenium HQ is 4.3%, up from 3.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.8%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Selenium HQ4.3%
Telerik Test Studio1.8%
Other93.9%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
Automation in testing processes sees improvement with multi-browser support and easier website interactions
Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks. The tool could simplify object identification, enabling users to generate XPaths without requiring detailed DOM understanding. Additionally, an automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
Raghvendra Jyothi - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager Project Management at Capgemini
Very good performance and load testing capabilities
There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"Data parametrization and parallelization are the most important features in any automation tool."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"Automation testing improves the quality we deliver and reduce the time for regression testing."
"The tool supports most of the features you want to automate and the stability of the executions is good too."
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"What I like the most is that it is fast, and when comparing, it is faster than HQ QTP and supports multiple processes, which is great."
"The object repository is the most valuable feature, as different elements can be identified and reutilized through the repository across other scripts, and the product has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
 

Cons

"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"Selenium could offer better ways to record and create scripts. IDE is available, however, it can be improved."
"There is no particular documentation about it that can help me in a technical way."
"Selenium has problems with some objects."
"We do not have enough resources or enough people to employ and hire. So, I'm hiring whoever I find, and they don't always have enough technical knowledge to operate Selenium."
"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"We have not seen a return on investment yet."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"The first time I customized the solution, it was quite challenging."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"The setup cost is open source or free."
"It is free to use."
"Selenium HQ is a free, open-source solution."
"It is an open-source product, it is free for anyone to use."
"There is no pricing cost. License is Apache License 2.0."
"Selenium HQ is open source and our use of it in our company is provided for free."
"The pricing is open source."
"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
914,938 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Construction Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Construction Company
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise33
Large Enterprise52
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
I will give an eight for my satisfaction with the pricing and licensing costs of Selenium HQ.
What needs improvement with Selenium HQ?
Some improvements can be implemented as compared to Playwright, which is why I rate it seven out of ten.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

SeleniumHQ
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T
Find out what your peers are saying about Selenium HQ vs. Telerik Test Studio and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
914,938 professionals have used our research since 2012.