Selenium HQ Reviews

I use Selenium HQ to migrate manual test cases in automation scripts. 

For example, with respect to a quality analyst, if I want to test a certain scenario, I have to write the test cases. It may be a small test case, a regulation test case, or a synergy test case. Selenium will migrate them in the automation script. Instead of executing all my test cases manually, I can run an automation suit that has been written with the help of Selenium. Selenium will execute this automation suit, and it will provide an execution report. The report will be 100% accurate using the code we wrote.

Selenium is an open-source tool that has significantly reduced the cost for the company.

The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined. Anyone with a good depth of technical skills can use their library with the help of their package.

One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing. For example, if there is a webpage where we need to upload some documents or emails in the webpage and I want to automate that scenario with the help of Selenium, it will not be possible. I can not upload any documents because when I am clicking on the browser the Windows pop up will appear. 

It would be beneficial if Selenium HQ would develop integrated plugins, and inbuilt features, which would help us to automate Windows based applications. With the help of other third party plugins, like AutoIt, Robot Class, or Sikuli we can integrate Windows based applications. 

Another limitation of Selenium HQ is that we can not automate the capture part. EML processing is not available in Selenium, particularly if a website requires some capture kind of validations before logging into the application. To overcome this situation, we can disable the capture part from the application side, so we can get access to the database directly.

I have been using Selenium HQ for six years.

The solution is stable.

Selenium HQ scales well.

I would rate customer service and support average overall.

The initial setup of Selenium is easy, usually taking two to three hours to complete.

The installation is completed in-house. 

The solution is open-source, so it is 100% free with no hidden charges.

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

I would recommend that anyone who is looking to implement Selenium into their organization should have strong technical knowledge. At least one person should have some programming language skill set in either Java, Python or C#. 

Selenium libraries are a tool that could be reused, but how to frame, integrate and optimize by reducing a line of code to get the proper maximum efficient output requires technical knowledge. It is valuable to have experience prior to joining the Selenium HQ community.

Overall, I would rate Selenium HQ an eight out of 10.

Our team primarily uses Selenium for web testing. It is useful for functional and regression testing. Although I am now managing a team and do not use any tools myself, my team works with several tools, including Selenium, Appium, KrayMaster, the Google Search tool, Postman, and Katalon Studio.

Using Selenium helps save money as it is an open-source tool. However, writing the code can be difficult and requires skilled personnel.

Selenium is a valuable tool for web testing, and it integrates easily with frameworks like the Gauge framework, making it easier than others. It supports different programming languages, including Java and JavaScript.

The most significant issue with Selenium is its difficulty in adapting to changing locators, which can hinder testing. Additionally, writing code can be challenging, especially for beginners.

I have been working with Selenium for about seven years.

While deploying and using Selenium, integrating frameworks and maintaining backups separately are areas that require more manual handling.

There is no need to contact the technical support team directly as there are many resources available online. Many people share solutions to common problems, so issues can often be resolved independently.

Neutral

Some colleagues argue that Cypress or Playwright might be better than Selenium, but we continue to use Selenium with the Gauge Framework.

As an open-source tool, Selenium does not have direct costs, but coding can be money-intensive because it is challenging.

Cypress and Playwright were considered by some colleagues as alternatives.

I mentioned that solving the issue of adapting to changing locators would significantly improve Selenium, potentially increasing its rating. Additionally, one can utilize web portals and AI to assist with problems.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

We are using Selenium HQ for automated UI testing of web applications.

The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google.

Selenium HQ can improve by creating an enterprise version where it can provide the infrastructure for running the tests. Currently, we need to run the test in our infrastructure because it's a free tool. If Google can start an enterprise subscription and they can provide us with the infrastructure, such as Google Cloud infrastructure where we can configure it, and we can run the test there, it would be highly beneficial.

I have been using Selenium HQ for approximately nine years.

Selenium HQ is highly stable.

The scalability of Selenium HQ is good.

We have approximately 10 testers that are using this solution.

The initial setup of Selenium HQ is very difficult. You need different configurations on your system, such as Java and you need to configure it. Additionally, you need to have some IDEs such as Eclipse or IntelliJ IDEA on your system. Selenium is supported in many languages, such as .NET, Java, Python, JavaScript, and C#. So, at least you must be knowing any one of these languages, then only you can use Selenium.

The solution requires coding experience to be able to implement.

The deployment does not take a lot of time. You can create a continuous integration pipeline with TeamCity or Jenkins, and then you can run tests.

Selenium HQ is a free and open-source solution and is supported by Google.

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

My advice to others is the first step to using Selenium HQ is to learn a programing language.

I rate Selenium HQ a nine out of ten.

It's a very stable tool and it's open-source, and there are new versions available. The new versions come quickly and frequently, you receive a successor version with bug fixes very easily. The tool is easy to use and highly configurable.

We do UI-based functional testing in Selenium. We have prioritized some of the use cases that are most likely to be affected, and we have added those to our regression suite. Each week or each month, we trigger the regression suite to check that nothing is broken.

It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc. It's open to different platforms, but you have to be really good at coding to work with this.

If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting.

I have been using this solution for the last four years. 

It's a stable product.

It's scalable. If you have a Jenkins setup and you are running on the grid, it's robust and smooth.

We have about 300 users, and it's used on a daily basis.

We have mostly used online support. Whatever you're looking for, the answers are already available on the web. If any technical issues are there, our own internal IT team is also able to fix them. I don't remember any instance of connecting with their support. So, it has been really smooth.

Positive

Its initial setup is a little tough. It could take around six hours, but if you are experienced enough, you can do it within an hour. If you are a complete beginner, it will be a little difficult.

You have to be really good with the POM dependencies, and you have to be used to working on different IDEs, such as IntelliJ or Eclipse ID. Based on the different setups, you have to consider the POM file and also integrate those dependencies. These things take up some time initially, but once they are done, it works well. I would rate it a 4 out of 5 in terms of the setup.

It doesn't require much maintenance. If you are upgrading to a new version, the basic changes will be needed, but not that much maintenance is needed. It's really easy. They do a release every six or seven months.

Selenium is an open-source product. It is free.

It's one of the best tools I have worked on. It's a strong tool and a winner in functional testing and automation testing. It's open source, and it also supports mobile testing. Other tools, such as UFT, are quite expensive. 

I would rate it a 9 out of 10.

We use Selenium HQ for the web application we developed here.

Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits.

Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things.

It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing.

I have only been with my current company for a short time. It has not been a long time since I have been working with Selenium HQ.

We worked with the open-source version of Selenium HQ.

Selenium HQ is a stable solution.

Selenium HQ is scalable.

There are approximately ten people who are automation engineers from level one to level four using this solution.

We have community support because it is open-source. There is no paid or dedicated support.

We're just getting started with Katalon, and it's our first time using it.

The initial setup is very simple.

Maintenance is required. 

The scripts we must maintain require a significant amount of upkeep.

It was open-source.

It's a free solution, we don't pay for anything.

It is an open-source product, it is free for anyone to use.

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

If it is not a large project or application, Selenium HQ is a good choice; however, if the application is large and you want to maximize coverage, I believe you should look into tools like Katalon or Ranorex, or something that allows you to do more scripting with less coding.

I would rate Selenium HQ a seven out of ten.

I'm currently working on automation testing using Selenium and Cucumber. 

I am using it with Java, not with as a standalone implementation. It's Selenium with Cucumber and with TestNG.

It's a dependency that I am using from SeleniumHQ. It's a couple of components.

We primarily use it for automation testing. 

The standard features are good, and I use them a lot. The framework for testing is robust with Selenium.

The integration with TestNG and Gherkin with Cucumber is great. Gherkin is a language for using for testing.

The solution is stable.

You can scale the product.

There is a supportive community around it. 

It would be awesome if there was a standalone implementation of Selenium for non-developer users. For example, for business users. If a business wants to test something and doesn't have the knowledge of coding and programming, they should still be able to.

They should offer a single setup. By that, I mean software that you don't need to set up component by component. They should make up a setup file that puts all software together in the place that it should be and it works.

I've been using the solution for six months. 

Selenium is a mature and stable software. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

Selenium is not so scalable. It's not like other software. There are a couple of dependencies where you can make it grow or shrink depending on your needs. In general, it's okay.

I haven't used support a lot. I have researched a couple of posts in the community. I've done no more than that.

The initial setup was not quite so complex and also not simple. I tried it in Eclipse, and it didn't work quite well, and then I tried it in IntelliJ. I need to look further into it if either can be used with Selenium. I didn't use it with Eclipse. I used it with IntelliJ. With IntelliJ, the implementation was pretty straightforward, pretty simple. However, with Eclipse, it's not.

We are customers. 

I'd advise users to take advantage of community posts. If the person finds any trouble, Google it. Probably someone already has found the same issue and also has found the solution or the workaround for it.

In general, I have no complaints about this product. I would rate it nine out of ten.

I've done headless execution and at times I've found that pretty useful.

The solution is stable.

It's a scalable product.

There's documentation that can help with the setup.

It's not too complicated to implement. 

The product is easy to use.

The pricing is great. 

The reporting part can be better. They need some APIs or maybe in-built libraries for reporting. At times, it's difficult to locate elements on certain applications on the web. Locating the elements, like web tables, becomes a little difficult sometimes. They can improve that feature also.

I've been using the solution for eight to ten years. 

The stability is good. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is good. It's reliable. 

Companies can scale it to a certain extent, yes. However, if I have to do execution on Selenium grid or something like that, therefore, it's pretty scalable.

There are a lot of people using the product. I'm not sure about the number, however, it's likely around 500 people.

I know that there is some technical support available, however, I've never contacted them. By going on the web, on stack overflow, I've pretty much been able to find a solution if we've had questions or issues. I've never contacted technical support.

I've also worked with Micro Focus. 

I'm working with Micro Focus, however, for that part, I'm working on the mainframe - although I've done some web testing using Micro Focus on a website. Otherwise, I found Selenium to be easier, and simpler to use than Micro Focus when it comes to the web. A lot of support online is available. A lot of forums, and communities are there. For Micro Focus, the part where you identify objects on a webpage, that part is pretty simple on Selenium. You can use XPath or CSS or IDE or anything, and it works fine. Yet with Micro Focus, the web part, I found it a little tedious to work with. Selenium is much easier in that sense on the web part.

It's an internal website that we work on.

The setup is pretty simple.

We do not really require some technical person for the maintenance of Selenium HQ. That said, sometimes, due to certain issues, like dependency on certain versions, you have to change the entry in your pom file. Otherwise, certain open-source things don't work well with the latest version of Selenium. The backward compatibility for certain other open-source software and APIs don't work well with the latest version of Selenium. You have to have little backward compatibility also. Other than that, I found it was pretty stable with almost all the other open-source software. It didn't require constant watching.

We did not need the help of a consultant or integrator. By reading some help files on the internet, we could set it up pretty easily. That's not a problem.

We have an enterprise license. The pricing is good. I'd rate it at a four out of five in terms of affordability. 

I'm just a consumer or end-user. 

We deploy on the cloud and on Jira as well.

I'm working on the latest version of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten. If they fixed the reporting functionality, I'd rate it higher. 

I'm using Selenium for low-budget projects, small projects, and mostly medium projects. I don't use it for anything on a large scale because it has some limitations. I'm also restricted by the level of knowledge and technicality of the people I can find on the market.

The solution can be deployed on-premise or on a private cloud. We mostly do on-premise installations. We always use the latest version.

It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus. It's much lower in costs. I can do isolated projects or limited term projects. In projects where I have one shop testing, for example, government institutions or different kinds of projects where they test only once and then perhaps they continue or not, then Selenium is a good choice.

In projects where I don't have any budget and I need automation quickly, I will go to Selenium. Being free is an advantage, and it's almost at the level of professional end-license tools. It's like buying a very expensive car, like a Porsche, compared to an ordinary car. They both move forward, and you get to your destination.

I'm based in Romania, and we have a personal crisis. 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.

I've been using Selenium for about four years. 

I'm a partner and a reseller. I'm also a training provider for Selenium. We have a course which is internationally accredited and we deliver it regularly on Selenium.

It's extremely stable.

It's difficult to scale with Selenium. I would say, yes, but with a little bit of doubt, because I have to install many other products on top of it and that requires technical knowledge and time.

It is less scalable than Micro Focus. Micro Focus comes like an already made package to be scaled from a small company to an enterprise. For Selenium, I have to work on it and develop some additional things, configurations, integrations, etc.

It's an open-source tool, so there is no technical support. But there is a lot of documentation on the internet. If you study on your own, you can learn Selenium from top to bottom.

I have also worked with Micro Focus.

Unfortunately, I find it difficult. I am a nontechnical person and each time I set up Selenium, I need to read a little bit of documentation. There are too many integrations with different tools.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

My advice for those who want to start using this solution is to analyze the project very well and choose the right tool for the project. For small projects, choose Selenium. It's the best option.

We don't directly use Selenium. We have built a wrapper around Selenium so other teams can consume it.

We are using version 4.0.1. We run it on a Microsoft public cloud in the CI/CD server.

There are around four teams which are currently using this solution, and we have a target of having around 10 teams.

It's easy for new people to get trained on this solution. If we are hiring new people, the resource pool in the market in test automation is largely around Selenium. It has a wider community. If there are issues, you can look around online and find a good solution.

Selenium is in continuous development. They release very stable versions. Those are the key points which helped us pick Selenium over other tools.

There are a few things we have to actually design and plan when we are building the automation. There are new tools which handle it by themselves, but that is a give and take when you actually use or choose a tool. 

Shadow DOM could be improved and the handling of single page applications. Right now, it's a bit complicated and there are a lot of additional scripts required if you want to handle a single page application in a neat way.

With these technologies, at times you have a lot of callbacks. Those aren't handled very well with Selenium. At some point of time, suppose you have entered something and the button needs to be enabled. Now, in normal terms, it seems to be a client side action, so if you enter something on the client side, JavaScript is running. It'll say, "Value is this, so I'll enable the button."

With this technology, if you enter something, it will go back to the server, get some value, and then it will enable the button. At some point of time, your project's delayed, and there is a callback happening in the background. It will not try to understand that, and it may just timeout.

I have been using this solution for about eight years.

I think it has stabilized a lot, but it's not the best tool in the market. It has a lot of room for improvement, but it has a very big community.

It is certainly scalable. It depends on how you want to use it. You can use it over a grid with multiple office machines, or you can run it standalone.

We have never used technical support because there is normally good content on the internet.

We evaluated other options but chose Selenium because of the skill sets in the market. If you use other solutions, the challenge is that if a person leaves, you won't get a second person or third person. Replacements are very difficult to come by if you are using different solutions.

It's actually complex. It's not really straightforward, but it depends on what you're actually building for your organization. We have built a wrapper around it for other teams that are actually consuming it.

Initially, you build a solution around it, which is a challenge. If you are trying to build a standalone automation with Selenium, it will be a challenge.

There isn't a set deployment. If a team wants to use it, they can start using it from day one.

It's open-source, so it's free.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. 

Learning is easy. Implementation is not as easy, but it is still better than other tools in the market right now. I'm giving it an eight because there are a lot of things Selenium is not supporting. The rest of technology is changing, but they are not changing along with it. Normally, if we are writing a complex test, we have to do a lot of workarounds, which isn't good when we are writing scripts.

I think it's very easy to screw up with Selenium if you're using it for the first time. If you are getting it for a large organization or large project, it makes sense to have some professional help.

We basically use Selenium for smoke testing and regression testing. We don't use it much for functional testing because you can easily and manually use a bunch of tests and make them a Zephyr. We use Zephyr as our test case management tool, which is a kind of a plugin for JIRA. So, we create our test cases in Zephyr, and then they are tagged to be automated. After that, we put them into our regression suite. Each team has its own independent regression suite. Currently, my team has a couple hundred, but I know some teams have 500 or 600 in their suite. We also have a suite of smoke tests that we run through Selenium.

All the code is on-prem. We're currently just running the tests through the Jenkins pipeline, but we want to be able to run them in parallel in the cloud and a lot quicker. We are not quite there yet. 

When we execute our smoke test, we're able to perform them really quickly with Selenium. Currently, in our project, we have 12 smoke tests. If I have to run them sequentially, it is going to take half an hour. If I run them in parallel, each one of them takes less than two and a half minutes. So, I could do smoke tests in under three minutes and get feedback right away about whether everything is up and running. We do production deployments throughout the week, but we try to do our main deployments on Sunday. Sunday is not the best working day, but because it is a weekend, we can get our work done. We want to be able to perform these tests quickly. The same is applicable to our pre-prod environment. We can run our smoke test right away, and it will be able to tell us that all the dependencies for our applications are up and running. As compared to doing it manually, which can take a few hours, it is really quick. 

It saves time for regression testing. It takes about three people to do the regression testing manually for probably two or three hours, whereas you can do it a lot quicker if you can get them in parallel. So, you can get quick feedback about whether your application is up and running right away. You don't want to go down the road where you find a problem after four or five hours. You want to find it out as quickly as possible.

Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable.

It saves time and enables us to execute our smoke test and regression tests really quickly.

We have a lot of inheritance going here. I've been doing it for so long, so it is pretty straightforward for me, but you have to know Java to be able to work in our framework. I know some people use Python, but you have to know Java. That's kind of the hardest thing when you're doing interviews. People just don't know Java. This is where probably Worksoft has an advantage because it is codeless. So basically, you are just pointing, clicking, and providing things like Excel spreadsheets for your test data. In that sense, if you are using Worksoft, it is a lot easier to train or onboard somebody.

We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements. You have to find the element on the page, and then you have to go to the page and the console. In the console, you can put the next path in there to locate the element manually in the JavaScript to say that this one will work, and let's use this because we'll put a string of that element. After that, we get the element based on that stream. That's probably the most time-consuming part of that. It is dependent on how well you've designed the front-end UI. We use something called Data Tests attribute through which we can locate elements super fast. If people consistently use those, that's great, but a lot of times when they go in there to fix some bugs, they're not consistent in doing that. They usually just find a way to locate the element and change that in the code. If you change something, then your code or your test is going to fail because the locator has changed the element, and you can't get it anymore. You have to manage a way to get it. So, when you're running your suite of tests and you see some failures, it takes some research to find out why did this paneling go, and then you find out that it happened because of the frontend change. Someone removed this element and changed it, and you have to change your locator, which is very time-consuming. It is kind of like a false belt. It is failing, but it is not. It is only failing because of your locator. It is not failing because the app is not functioning correctly. It is a kind of false failure. Sorting the elements quicker would be a big thing with Selenium.

I have been using this solution for eight years.

We have a dozen teams at our company, and each one of them is independent. We give them a pretty extensive Selenium framework, and then they basically start building based on that architecture and create their test cases and page objects.

In terms of its usage, Selenium is our testing framework. We use Jenkins to perform our test cases. A lot of them are done through a pipeline, and a lot of them are queued on to run automatically. There are triggers in there to run something every day at 9:00 AM. We don't have to manually say that we want to test this aspect of our page. 

The excellence team now has four people, and that's just the team that manages the framework. There are 25 people who can do test automation. They do manual tests and automation. They use the same framework, and if they find some issues, they'll ask us. If they're constantly having to do a certain function and having to write the Selenium code for it, they will ask us to do that. We might create a tool inside the framework to make their life quicker. We can put it inside the common Selenium framework so that it is always available to everybody.

Selenium is an open-source solution. If you have a problem, you can pretty much Google something and figure out a solution for it. There are so many people who are using it, and there is a lot of material that is available out there for you to troubleshoot any kind of problems.

You don't usually directly go to the open-source code. I don't visit it at all nowadays. In the beginning, I did do it a lot, but not so much now. We're now in a state where we are just executing test cases and creating new ones. It does everything we need and meets our needs.

It has been Selenium for me from the get-go. I've been here at XPO for almost five years. Before that, I was more of a contractor, and I did a couple of contracts. When I went to a healthcare company, they really didn't have a great framework. So, I started one, but I doubt that they're still using it. That's because it requires a lot of knowledge to be able to create a framework.

It is something that I've been always using. I've done some research on some other tools to be able to do things, but I always come back to Selenium. 

We're an angular-based house, and all our pages are in angular. There are some other products that run on top of JavaScript besides Selenium. There are quite a few people out there who are using Protractor, which is an end-to-end type of test framework, but it works specifically for angular applications. We have never gone down that path. We just stuck with Selenium.

When I first came here, the framework was in place, but it was more basic. There is a team of three guys here, and we're all pretty smart. We're the excellence team for the framework. We've done a lot to make it a lot simpler for us to create our test cases. Three people probably worked 25% of the time for a few years on it. So, a lot of time was invested into the framework, and it has come a long way. It is much more sophisticated now.

Maintaining the architecture and Selenium framework for testing requires work. It is an ongoing kind of process. We're constantly maintaining it and updating it.

It is all free.

Each product has its own pros and cons. It is very customizable, but then you have to have a lot of knowledge about Java or an object-oriented programming language that works with it. They keep creating frameworks to make your life easier, and it is a very customizable framework, but you have to have the knowledge to be able to do it. There are other tools out there, such as Worksoft, for which you don't have to know Java.

If you're starting from scratch, it would be good to get a good Java developer and make him or her get everybody up and going. That Java developer can train junior test automation people. You should hold on to that person for as long as you can. Getting a good Java person is probably critical when you're creating your Selenium framework.

It is not the easiest thing because it is hard to get a quality assurance resource that is knowledgeable about Java. So, it is very difficult to get a good framework in place. Usually what happens is that you'll get QA people who start doing QA, and then they start doing test automation. Once their skills get up there in Java where they're decent, they move over to being a software developer. So, they get out of the QA world, and they go over to be a developer. So, you lose that talent. You had to do your framework, and now they're gone. Maintaining good talent is difficult. It is hard enough to maintain the Selenium framework, and when you start losing people, it makes it harder. The next person comes in line, and it is just a revolving door. 

I would rate Selenium HQ an eight out of 10 because it is not perfect, but it is the best tool out there to do automated testing.