Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Selenium HQ vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 21, 2025

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
7th
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
24th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (14th), Test Automation Tools (26th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Selenium HQ is 3.2%, down from 4.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.4%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Selenium HQ3.2%
Telerik Test Studio1.4%
Other95.4%
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.
Chirag N M - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Quality Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Supports multiple platforms and identifies elements in a good way
Instead of Telerik Test Studio, I'd recommend writing test cases in .Net so that in the future, if you move away from Telerik Test Studio to another tool, it would be easier for you. Your current code would be reusable. You won't have to change your test cases much. We wrote our code in a separate IDE, which was Visual Studio, and internally, we had the infrastructure to interact with Telerik Test Studio. All the internal logic that we needed for our purpose was implemented in .NET, and we used Telerik Test Studio for tests. I'd rate Telerik Test Studio an eight out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"It is stable. I have never encountered any concerning situations with Selenium HQ."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."
"It's not too complicated to implement."
"Selenium is easy to use, with a straightforward setup and many reusable features."
"For me, the most valuable feature of Selenium lies in its ability to help us find elements quickly. Apart from that, the driver interface is really useful, too. When we implement the Selenium driver interface, we can easily navigate through all of the pages and sections of an app, including performing things like clicking, putting through SendKeys, scrolling down, tagging, and all the other actions we need to test for in an application."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"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."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
 

Cons

"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem."
"I would like to see some reporting or test management tools."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"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."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is an open-source solution."
"We are using Selenium open-source, so there is no need to purchase anything."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"There is no pricing cost. License is Apache License 2.0."
"It is an open-source product, it is free for anyone to use."
"Selenium HQ is a free and open-source solution and is supported by Google."
"Selenium HQ costs around $1000 per month, which is a bit high based on what they're offering."
"Selenium is a free tool."
"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.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Healthcare Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
19%
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise33
Large Enterprise51
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 do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
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.
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: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.