Selenium HQ Reviews

The system is SaaS, and we use it for web-based regression tests that are being done locally at an in-home office or in the company office.

What I like about Selenium HQ is that we wrote it ourselves. I think it's perfect. It's a framework that you can use to devise your own products, which is nice.

Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products.

I've been using Selenium for about a year now.

Selenium's stability is good.

Scalability has not been a problem for us.

We haven't really needed support. We write our own code, so if anything goes wrong, we can fix it.

Phil Ward:
Well, we set it up ourselves, so we knew what we were doing. Basically, the installation is ava-based, so you have to write Java code to get it working.

I would rate Selenium HQ nine out of 10. If someone is thinking about adopting Selenium HQ, I would encourage them to use it. However, you do need to be reasonably proficient in Java, C#, or C++.

We use Selenium HQ for automation and API integration.

The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well.

I have been using Selenium HQ for approximately four years.

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.

The solution takes a lot of time for the developers. For example, if we are trying to implement UiPath or Automation Anywhere the people who are non-technical can use these two solutions. Selenium HQ is not easy for someone that is new to use, it takes too long for developers to learn the solution. There are other solutions that do not require such a learning curve.

We have approximately 870 users using this solution.

Selenium HQ has a large online community where you can get help on any issues or problems.

The installation is straightforward.

I have evaluated other solutions.

If you have developers that can operate Selenium HQ then this solution will be a good fit. However, if your developers are new to Selenium it might be better to choose another solution.

I rate Selenium HQ an eight out of ten.

Selenium HQ is used by our organization to automate test scripts for our applications as well as to automate or regression tests carried out during software development.

The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features.

The ease of use for the whole tool.

I would like more usability and ease of use.

The graphical interface could be improved. It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line.

I have been using Selenium HQ in my department for three years.

Selenium HQ is a stable product.

It is easy to scale Selenium HQ.

We have five members in our Quality Assurance team, and three are dedicated to Selenium.

We have plans to increase our usage in Selenium but the issue is time.

We have not contacted technical support. In a Google search, you can find the help you need. It's an open community.

We worked with other solutions previously and changed to Selenium because of the cost of the license.

We are also using Microsoft Team Foundation (TFS), which is now known as Azure DevOps. We are upgrading to DevOps.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It took half a day to deploy.

One person is enough to maintain this solution.

We completed the installation and deployment internally.

The cost of the license is better than other solutions. Selenium is a free tool. It's open-source.

To date, we have not paid any additional fees.

I would recommend using Selenium with Python, it will be helpful.

I would rate Selenium HQ a seven out of ten.

I'm the company's managing director and we are customers of Selenium. 

 It enables us to handle some of the custom controls of Ajax calls to Selenium and Selenium Grid for parallel execution on different versions of the application and on different platform.

The Selenium stop control has been a challenge. We use auto IT for handling some of the small controls, small scenarios on the desktop, it needs to be improved with a configuration tool where it can handle desktop support as well as Ajax controls. Basically, there needs to be an improvement in handling the Ajax custom controls because the inbuilt method is not very helpful in that respect.

I've been using this solution for almost five years. 

This is a stable and reliable solution for web applications, there is no doubt since it's an open-source tool, it's recommended for any web application. We used GitHub and Jenkins for continuous integration and everything is available online, we have experience working with the Jenkins version controls and configuration tools.

We use Google or blogs for any problems. There are sometimes delays and if we are moving into a new Chrome version or a new Firefox version, there can be delays of up to a couple of days to figure out the plugins and there's no immediate support available. We need to wait till something turns up on the internet. 

We've been using Selenium for a long time and haven't had many issues; we knew how to configure it. It's not completely straightforward and implementation takes time but everything was available on the internet and the blogs. There's a lot of documentation available regarding deployment. 

We're using the open source version. We don't have any support from Selenium HQ.

I would recommend this solution. If working on multiple browsers and on multiple platforms is the goal, then Selenium is definitely the right tool because it works on Windows as well as on Linux. It also supports multiple browsers. 

I rate the solution eight out of 10. 

My company started using Selenium HQ two years ago for unit testing. We were trying to evaluate the record and playback features. We are basically outsourcing this function, and we're charged for every developed feature and testing. So, we thought that we could test it ourselves using the record and playback feature. We were navigating our web application records in a macro and tried to reproduce that later. But for some reason, it's not the best solution for us.

I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output.

It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test.

I think we have been using Selenium HQ for two years, but I only joined the company six months ago.

We are satisfied with its stability.

We are satisfied with its scalability. We have five or six users working with Selenium HQ.

Selenium is an open-source solution, and It's free.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Selenium HQ a seven.

We are using selenium in our organization for Unit Testing, Smoke Testing, Sanity Testing and Regression Testing.

Reduces Manpower, Testing is become much faster which is helpful for faster Project delivery. 

Selenium supports a range of languages, including Java, Perl, Python, C#, Ruby, Groovy, JavaScript, and more. It has its own script, but it is not limited by that language. It can work with various languages – whatever the developers/testers are comfortable with.

Selenium provides support across multiple browsers, namely, Internet Explorer, Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Safari. This becomes highly resourceful while executing tests and testing it across various browsers simultaneously.

I have been using this solution for approximately two years.

The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs till now.

I have not connected their technical support. However, there is a lot of community support for Selenium HQ online. If you look on internet you can find plenty of solutions for challenges you are facing.

The initial setup is little complicated the installation could be simplified.

I would recommend this solution to others.

We are using Selenium for web application automation and mobile automation.

In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature.

We use sticker boards and we are happy with the UI.

Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code. This means that we have to spend a lot of time on maintenance. 

We have been using Selenium HQ for the past two years.

Stability has been a problem during my testing. I have run the same code several times and faced issues for no apparent reason. Problems were identified, though the objects are all in place and no changes have happened in the UI, the test failed unwantedly. Then, we run the test case for the second time, the result will be true. This means that there is instability in the tests.

We only have a small number of test cases and haven't faced any problem with scalability. However, I am not sure what will happen when we try bulk testing.

There are three different teams for automation in my organization, and each has a single point of contact, so there are three different people.

We have not been in contact with technical support. When we did have a problem, we were able to resolve it by finding the solution online.

We were using another set of tools for quite some time before we switched to Selenium HQ.

We are also using Appium, which has native support for Android and iOS devices.

The initial setup was complex and it took us approximately five days to complete.

Our in-house team handled the deployment.

One person is responsible for maintenance, although this is one of the problems that we faced. There is no separate team for maintenance.

This is an open-source product so there is no cost other than manpower.

We conducted a PoC using UiPath for RPA. We are planning to try using Tricentis Tosca for codeless automation. We are continuing with our evaluation and ultimately, want to find the best tool.

My advice for anybody who is considering Selenium HQ is that if there is a timeframe that is separate from the automation then it is suitable. However, if there is no timeframe and the issue does not fit into the automation, and it needs to be adapted manually, then this product is not a good choice.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used.

It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it.

Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools.

Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage.

I have been using Selenium HQ for three years.

It has good stability.

Scalability is good. They are improving on that.

I haven't directly interacted with anyone. For most of the questions that I have, I search online, and I am able to find the answers in the community.

It is complex, but they have detailed documentation, which is helpful.

You need a person who knows one programming language thoroughly. It is not like anybody can pick and work on this solution. You should be thorough enough on the language and the framework that you are choosing. Only then Selenium HQ is the way to go.

I would rate Selenium HQ a seven out of ten.