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 have a lot of information that we are putting on different websites and social media platforms because we need to inform our social network users about what we are doing, what we are planning to do, and what was done. Sometimes, it's information which is the same, or it's the same on different websites, in different web software, and so on. I am using Selenium mostly for this purpose.

I like its simplicity.

It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers. That's why it's not common for end-users, and especially for RPA activities or tasks. It's hard to automate tasks for end-users. If it will be easier, more user-friendly, and so on, perhaps it can be more interesting for this kind of user. 

The second thing, when you are working in IT, you know about such tools. But if you are on the business side, you don't have much information at all.

I would like to see easy onboarding with training for end-users. Because there is a lot of stuff for developers, but for end-users, I would say none or approximately none.

I've been using Selenium HQ for five years.

I didn't have problems with stability.

I didn't have problems with scalability.

The initial setup is complex. I think some changes were done, but it's still too complicated for end-users. 

I would advise potential users to contact their IT guys because they will have a problem setting up the first automation. Of course, if there are people like me who want to develop their own knowledge, I would say they need time to get to know how to use it, optimize the process, etc. 

But if not, it will be easier for end-users to start with some kind of RPA offering by different vendors because they have their tools prepared for the end-users, for onboarding, and so on.
Because these open-source tools are still tools made for developers and IT guys, not for end-user.

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

In my company, I use the tool for testing web browsers.

We basically use the product for two things. The first is for testing for a website. The other thing is for repeating actions so that you can repeat the same action over and over with ease and without having to repeat the original steps. 

The solution is free to use. It's open-source, and you can modify the source. 

You can use it on different platforms, including Windows, Linux, or macOS.

It's easy to find and receive help from other developers. There is a good community that surrounds it.

The solution has been very stable so far.

Sometimes it's difficult to understand the solution. It's a good solution, however, it has many specific things you need to know, or you need to learn about. For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use. You have to know how to program. You need to be a developer.

The tool has two steps: first, when you record, and second when you play back. However, in the middle, you need to look at a file. You need to save a file and after that look at them. It would be ideal if the solution allowed for the process to be one step and more automatic. 

The initial setup is quite complex.

I've been using the solution for maybe two years or so at this point. It's been a while.

The stability of the solution is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

I've never tried to scale the solution, however, it's my understanding that it is possible. On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate the potential to scale at a six or seven.

The tool is open source. Typically, when something is a commercial solution, there is more of a possibility of being scalable. We depend on other developers to grow the tool. 

Last year, we only had two people on the tool. However, this year, I want to grow that number to about ten. They are all engineers. Of the team, 80% would be quality engineers and 20% would be developers.

I don't use Selenium technical support. As an open-source tool, you need to go to the community and the forums.

Typically, you can find your answers pretty quickly. You can ask the community as well, and usually, someone gets back to you pretty fast.

I also use SmartBear. Selenium only works for web browsers, and sometimes I need to check an application. When that is the case, I cannot use Selenium, and I instead use SmartBear.

The initial setup is not straightforward. It's pretty complex.

It's complex due to the fact that you need to download a complement for the web browser and you need to recall the tests and you have to load the files. When you do a recall, the tools create a file with the steps. Before you need to playback, you need to load the file. It's not easy. You need to know some things about the tool. 

The deployment took maybe six months to possibly 10 months.

You only need one person for deployment and maintenance.

The solution is open-source and free to use. There are no licensing costs.

We did look at Katalon Studio before ultimately choosing Selenium HQ.

The principle difference is Katalon is one solution. You can't change the functionalities in the solution. It's also complex to use and demands a lot of memory. You need a lot of RAM or a big processor. It just takes up too many resources. 

We are just a customer and end-user.

I'm not sure which version number we're using. However, it is a version from 2020, from the last year or so.

I'd advise those considering the solution, if you want use SeleniumHQ, it's a good option if you have good developers that understand the tool and can make changes in the tool. If you have the right people on hand, it works very, very well.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. If it didn't need such technical expertise, I might rate it higher.