Selenium HQ Reviews

I use Selenium HQ to streamline our regression testing procedures and minimize the amount of manual testing required, we chose to automate our entire regression suite. This includes all of the flow cases, as well as various other test cases, such as those for UI testing and negative and false validation tests. We automated a wide range of test cases to maximize efficiency.

The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications.

I have been using Selenium HQ for approximately four years.

We have two people using this solution in my organization.

The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework.

I rate the initial setup of Selenium HQ a three out of ten.

I rate Selenium HQ a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case is we have a new development going on for our tool, our project, where we have to test web-based applications. These are all web-based applications wherein Selenium fits well for all the web applications.

I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good.

I would like to see some reporting or test management tools.

I have been working with Selenium HQ for the past eight months.

The stability is evident and it is a good tool.

The scalability is good. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it a nine.

When it comes to technical support you do have to go online for the support community.

Selenium only works with web-based applications, it does not work on desktops, or any Java-based, form-based applications. There is no automation for any of these kinds of applications. With the Oracle Application Testing Suite, it can do anything. Currently, it has some drawbacks in automating desktop-based applications. However, the main difference is Selenium only sticks to web-based applications. But Oracle Application Testing Suite, or any other testing suite, like UFT, can automate a form-based or desktop-based application.

The initial setup is very simple and not complex.

The pricing is open source.

If you are wanting to do some web-based automation, definitely Selenium HQ is a good solution. I would rate Selenium HQ a six out of ten.

We are using the solution as a trial at the moment and have not implemented it for customers.

The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior.

Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it.

I have been using Selenium HQ for approximately two years.

Selenium HQ is salable.

Selenium HQ is scalable.

Selenium HQ has a great community. You can receive information from forums. If you are stuck with something you have a community that can help you.

Miro Focus was a better solution than Selenium HQ for none programmers, it is easier to use.

The initial setup of Selenium HQ was easy. However, I was not directly involved.

Selenium HQ is a free solution.

When evaluating other solutions, such as Micro Focus, their price was not reasonable for our needs.

The primary use case for us is IntelliJ and IDEA.

The most valuable feature I have found is the bomb file and it is easy in its coding. It has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages.

I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack.

I have been using Selenium HQ for three years.

Selenium HQ is a stable solution.

Selenium HQ is definitely scalable.

Technical support consists of excellent documentation online.

Positive

The initial setup of Selenium HQ is straightforward.

Currently, Selenium HQ is free for customers.

I would rate Selenium HQ an eight out of ten.

I mainly use Selenium HQ for web application automation.

Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access. 

Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities. It would also be improved with the ability to input multiple identifiers and quickly search the content. In the future, Selenium HQ should include machine learning features.

I've been using Selenium HQ for seven to eight years.

I haven't found many issues related to stability - so far, Selenium HQ has worked wonders for me.

In terms of scalability, I'm not particularly happy with the grid stuff, but it is scalable.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward, so long as you have the correct plugin. I would rate the setup experience 4.5 out of 5.

Selenium HQ costs around $1000 per month, which is a bit high based on what they're offering.

I would recommend anyone thinking of implementing Selenium HQ to go for it - it fits into every format, depending on your time and skillset. I would rate Selenium HQ nine out of ten.

The main use case of Selenium HQ is for end-to-end automation of UI applications.

Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages.

An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM. I would also like better integration with applications like Salesforce.

I've worked with Selenium HQ for eight to nine years.

Selenium HQ is stable.

Selenium HQ is scalable - you can execute on multiple browsers in parallel.

Previously, I used UFT but switched to Selenium HQ as it's an open-source product while UFT is licensed.

The initial setup was straightforward, and deployment took five months.

We used an in-house team.

In order to use Selenium HQ comfortably, you need to be very strong on Java skills. I would give Selenium HQ a rating of seven out of ten.

We use it for test automation. We are also using Cypress for some of our automated tests. We've tried Selenium a little bit, but it depends on the project we are doing.

It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market.

I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more.

I have been using this solution for one year.

It is stable.

We have five people on the team, but not all of us are using it. We have plans to increase its usage.

It is not complex. I don't remember the time it took, but I do have development and testing experience. So, for me, it was an easy ramp-up.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate it a seven out of 10.

Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts.

I would like for the next release to support parallel testing.

We were using Micro Focus UFT which is for Windows application and used Selenium for web use. The two solutions are not comparable in my opinion because they both have their advantages and disadvantages.

The initial setup was straightforward. I was able to add the packages that I wanted and quickly get started with development in a day.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.