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

Selenium HQ vs Tricentis Flood comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (5th), Regression Testing Tools (4th)
Tricentis Flood
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (18th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Selenium HQ is designed for Functional Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 4.3%, up 3.6% compared to last year.
Tricentis Flood, on the other hand, focuses on Load Testing Tools, holds 2.7% mindshare, up 1.8% since last year.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Selenium HQ4.3%
Tricentis Tosca9.4%
OpenText Functional Testing8.1%
Other78.2%
Functional Testing Tools
Load Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis Flood2.7%
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)14.8%
Tricentis NeoLoad13.9%
Other68.6%
Load 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.
Test Process Consultant - PeerSpot reviewer
SME (Subject Matter Expert) at Maersk
Need improvements ,but has cloud and on-premises options
The solution is not in an optimal state. During POC, we analyzed tool is kept on upgrading. The patch deployment is happening in parallel, things that are working today are not working tomorrow. We eventually sorted it out with help of CSM. We integrated this tool with other software such as Azure client, but many times without a valid or visible reason, the connectivity was breaking. Improvement suggestions- The dashboard creation for the reporting needs to be easier. Currently, the solution does not support multiple script executions and we would like to see support for this.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Nowadays we are using the solution to allow old solutions to run through it, so we don't need to go check functionalities created previously, as we just run the automation in one click, which saves a lot of time and allows us to focus on other things."
"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 supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"Without WebDriver and Grid, the sheer size of team/software license required to accomplish this humongous task would have thrown us out of business."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"Our clients have realized benefits by reducing their testing cycle from three days to three hours through Selenium."
"Their technical support is awesome."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
 

Cons

"The IDE portion is useful for doing quick recordings of steps, but the resulting scripts are extremely fragile."
"Selenium IDE needs to be improved not like just a record / play back tool, but as an effective web elements spy."
"Being an open source product, there is no customer service or technical support available."
"There is a challenge with concurrent testing, where parallelization is not fully supported."
"Some improvements can be implemented as compared to Playwright, which is why I rate it seven out of ten."
"We have seen latency issues with Internet Explorer. I would like to see better support for Internet Explorer."
"The solution needs to offer much more information in regard to performance testing using Selenium."
"Sometimes we face challenges with Selenium HQ. There are third party tools that we use, for example for reading the images, that are not easy to plug in. The third party add-ons are difficult to get good configuration and do not have good support. I would like to see better integration with other products."
"We used an implementation strategy to deploy the solution, not because of the tools, but mainly because of the scripting part of the tool."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
"The solution lacks a little bit in the reporting features."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is open source."
"It's open-source, so it's free."
"We are using Selenium open-source, so there is no need to purchase anything."
"Currently, Selenium HQ is free for customers."
"This is an open-source product so there is no cost other than manpower."
"Selenium HQ is open source and our use of it in our company is provided for free."
"It is an open-source solution."
"Selenium HQ is a free, open-source solution."
"This solution is in the average price range compared to other testing tools."
"The only positive point is it came free with my test automation tool."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
7%
No data available
 

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.
Do you recommend Tricentis Flood?
Tricentis Flood is the kind of versatile load and performance testing solution that my organization and I cannot help but recommend. It is recognized by companies across a wide variety of fields as...
 

Also Known As

SeleniumHQ
Flood IO
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Nike, heroku, Soulcycle, NEC, boston.com, Typeform, Xero, Telus
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Worksoft, OpenText and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: August 2026.
913,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.