Selenium HQ Reviews

Selenium HQ is an automation tool for automating applications. 

Selenium HQ is primarily used for smoke tests, and its excellent stability allows such tests to be executed seamlessly. The solution helps in regression tests where certain scenarios need to be repeatedly set. Manual processing of regression tests is highly time-consuming, but using Selenium HQ can reduce the time effectively.  

I believe Selenium HQ to be the best solution in the market for automating web applications.

There are some synchronization issues with Selenium HQ; often, the solution is unable to match the browser speed, which has led to poor results. Some mechanisms should be added to Selenium HQ to improve synchronization. 

It's an open-source solution with regular updates, but previously, in the 3.14.0 version at our company, we had to setup the ChromeDrivers, but in the latest feature, it wasn't necessary as the solution got easily integrated into the cloud. 

I have been using Selenium HQ for two to three years. 

I will rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. At our organization we have a team of five or six people who are using Selenium HQ for automation. The maintenance of the product is always costly and time-consuming. It's very difficult for anybody to understand the code in business logic for a third party, so in our company, we need to share our knowledge with the maintenance professional first. 

To know about any updates on Selenium HQ I use search engines like Google and then update my Selenium HQ version accordingly. 

It's an effortless process to setup Selenium HQ. As part of the installation process, the dependencies need to be downloaded and pasted into the XML file for auto-execution. The installation of the solution can be completed in a few seconds. 

In our organization, we use Atlas for IDE and Maven for Eclipse to copy the dependencies from the cloud, and the rest of the testing process is setup using a test engine. 

For testing web applications using Selenium HQ, the panel application and test synchronization features have proven the most beneficial. Selenium HQ supports almost every project browser, like Edge, Firefox, and Chromium, for testing automation. I would definitely recommend Selenium HQ to others, it's a robust product for automating applications. 

I would rate Selenium HQ as nine out of ten. 

We are using Selenium HQ for the automation of web applications.

The solution can be deployed on the cloud or on-premise.

The solution has improved the company by reducing a lot of manual work.

The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes.

We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications.

I have been using Selenium HQ for approximately three years.

Selenium HQ is a stable solution. However, it depends on how the applications are identified. If the applications or objects are identified correctly then it is stable. Otherwise, we can have some glitches in the identification and verification.

The scalability of Selenium HQ is good. It can be scaled. There are some robotic files that can be added to scale up the solution.

We have approximately 2,000 to 3,000 users using this solution in our company.

Depending on the project we are involved with, we could use the solution daily, weekly, or monthly.

We use forums and documentation that are helpful for troubleshooting.

If you only look at the web application automation from Selenium HQ compared to other tools, such as WorkSoft and UFT, the speed of execution is very slow in WorkSoft and UFT. The scalability with multiple browsers is simpler and easier in Selenium HQ, whereas it's a bit more complicated in WorkSoft and UFT.

Selenium HQ's initial setup was straightforward. However, the integration part took some time.

I rate the initial setup of Selenium HQ a four out of five.

Selenium HQ is a free solution.

This solution is good to use if the application that is getting identified for the objects is able to uniquely identify the properties. If this process works well then it is good to use. If it is a web application, they can use this solution, but if a desktop-based application is involved, then they should look for another solution.

I rate Selenium HQ an eight 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. 

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.

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.

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.

Neutral

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.

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.