Selenium HQ Reviews

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. 

We are using Selenium HQ as a plugin within Visual studio and we develop in C#. We use the Visual Studio IDE and Selenium is our solution for automation testing.

The most valuable feature is that it is open-source.

The testing solution produces the best web applications.

Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code. The performance is something in need of improvement.

There is no direct option for image validation and this would be a useful addition in the future. In our application, we have a graphical representation that needs to be validated, and it can be done by validating all of the images. However, we can't do that with Selenium so we don't cover these scenarios in our test cases.

We have been using Selenium for more than six years.

We have not faced any issues in terms of stability.

We have not needed to contact technical support specifically for Selenium because there is a lot of information available on the internet. If we have problems then we can gather the solution ourselves.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We are satisfied with the pricing.

We have just completed a PoC with Eggplant and we prefer it because they have support for testing desktop applications.

In summary, this is a good product. If it is a web application that you are testing then this is the best option.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We work for a client who does HRM solutions. They wanted us to develop their scripts using Selenium HQ. Typically, we develop UI, API and database scripts. These are the three combinations we have used for them. So their test cases are typically where we initially do some operations on the various applications they have. Then, once the operation is done, we initiate a few API calls and then we validate the data in the database. This whole process of trying to enter into, listen into, and close is done using Selenium HQ. This is what we are doing. We have close to 8,000 test cases in the last three years.

What I like the most about this product is that it gives us a lot of freedom to code anything, there is no restriction on the type of function you can do. Typically, we use Java with it, and Java has a lot of libraries available online, and whatever you need you can just write the Java code for that part of the work and then you can do it. This includes, multi-technology, the UI database, API image based testing - it lets us do everything.

Selenium is good when the team is really technical because Selenium does less built-in methods. If it came with more built-in and pre-built methods it would be even easier for less technical people to work with it. That's where I think the improvement can be.

I would also like to see a good method for image based automation. That's what I believe is a very upcoming thing and is something that Selenium really lacks. The imagery is kind of an automation. It's more of an object decipher, so that's something I really want to see because most of the tools are moving in that direction.

I have been using Selenium HQ for three years.

It is stable, but one issue I see is that whenever there's a new version coming in, every three months or so, the current version changes and the new version of Selenium is not stable and then we have to wait for a week or so to get a patch for that.

We use Selenium HQ on a regular basis.

Overall there are around 20 people working on this just in my area, who are also responsible for delivery as well as maintenance.

On a similar previous project, we scaled it. We went ahead and integrated the continuous integration and Jenkins Pipeline with QA. It was pretty scalable. We were able to connect it to CID and we were able to connect it to JIRA.

In terms of customer support, it is more of a community support. There's a lot of small communities for Selenium HQ. I don't think Selenium HQ has official support. But there are a lot of communities. So typically we go to Stack Overflow and that kind of community where we just look for the support if we get stuck.

The initial setup was pretty easy. There is lot of online documentation and online help. Even if you get stuck somewhere it just takes a few searches to figure out the issue because there is good community support.

We were able to deploy and install this product all by ourselves without any extra help.

We tried MicroFocus UFT and we also evaluated Tosca. These are the two tools we evaluated along with HQ but we felt Selenium HQ was better for us.

The overall need for this project was that we were supposed to integrate across multiple technologies. When we started this project two years back we had to use API and a UI database. We were not allowed to use a lot of technologies. So we realized it would not be easy with other tools to combine three technologies in the same place since it's a different structure. This was not possible with UFT or Tosca. So that was one of the biggest reasons we chose Selenium HQ, because the whole project depended on that kind of a flow.

Additionally, there was the licensing issue. It was pretty costly at Tosca and MicroFocus UFT, whereas Selenium HQ is all open source and has a very good community support. So I think these are the two reasons we chose it.

My personal advice is that it is such an amazing tool to work on. The best thing about the tool is the community support. I don't think any other tool has that kind of a community support. You just post a question on any popular community, like Stack Overflow, and you get answers in like 20 minutes. There are so many people using it which makes life really easy. At the same time, you get a lot of free hands to work on. Meaning because it's based on Java which has so many open source libraries, you can use any library to do any kind of functionality you want. That's a pretty powerful tool. My advice if you get stuck somewhere, is to just put it on community and then you get your answer.

On a scale of one to ten I would rate Selenium HQ an eight.

I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support.

In terms of improvement, there should be standardized frameworks, which do not exist. Currently, you have to first sit down and look inward. This function is provided by some tools like Katalon.

There should be standardized frameworks to build automation.

I have been using Selenium for five to six years. 

We also use Sauce Labs. We do testing on various versions of browsers, and various operating systems for Android and Apple. So Sauce Labs provided that capability, where we can easily scale up our testing to test on various versions.

The scalability and stability are quite good. It is easily scalable. With a few pieces of code, it's scalable.

We have interacted on the Selenium forums a couple of times but never contacted the technical support.

We also use Sauce Labs.

We set up the entire framework around how the tests would be and different class structures. Then we evaluated how to construct labs and how to title execution and stuff like that. It took us good four to five months of two or three people working on it, to set up a robust framework.

If you are using it for the automation test, automation is generally good. If you have an experienced developer, it will be really good to deploy the open-source frameworks for Selenium.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

Not a ten because they don't come loaded with the frameworks or different framework options. You have to build it from scratch. The build-in comes with a lot of networks and libraries and stuff. You still need to build that framework before you start writing the code

They try to come up with new features. I think they're in a very good space.

Our company is a customer of Selenium and I work in QA.

One of the most valuable features of this solution is Web Scraping although overall I think every single feature of Selenium is valuable because it's purely API so we can integrate it with any other tool.

In terms of improvement, I think there could be additional readability and abstraction in the solution, similar to the way other frameworks function. The solution could possibly use a more generic framework with more machine learning. If the community or IT companies had the budget, they might be able to work on that but it would definitely improve the solution, particularly in areas such as image comparison and image recognition. Machine learning capability would enable a self-healing capability in terms of locators. Selenium is not a magician, you need to provide instructions in order for it to identify any element in the web. That would really be an advantageous feature. Jason Arbon, CEO at test.ai, demonstrated this in Appium, which derives from Selenium. 

I'd also like to see a one-click install package. For now, I have to use TestNG, then Java, and then build them back. That could be simplified. 

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

It's a pretty stable solution but we have to be careful and make sure we're using what has been released. We need to know which version to use and make sure it's the latest one so we know it will be stable. 

We are a small setup so have four or five users in the company. I've worked in bigger companies where thousands have used the solution on a daily basis, so it's very scalable. 
It's not the solution that deals with scalability, it's the cloud or a virtual system that enables scaling. If there are 1,000 test cases that I want to commute in an hour, then sometimes the reports can be messy.

We use Selenium forums most of the time and we get most of our answers from there. There are multiple people online providing answers. Selenium does provide a service but we don't use it because we are self-sufficient in that respect.

I have used Coded UI from Microsoft, which I believe will be deprecated some time this year. That was a very good solution. Before that, I also used HP QTP. Both of those are easier solutions than Selenium but also quite expensive. 

The very first setup several years ago was quite complex, nowadays it is simple. Generally we use Maven, so it is simply importing and doing the setup. If I already know the settings, it can be deployed within half an hour. It depends on the system configuration so there can be issues sometimes. Setup can easily be done internally and if there are good community people there could be a one-stop solution layer where installation is one click. Maintenance is only required when there are updates or API changes. 

The solution requires good understanding of Python, Pearl or Java and it's important to use the documentation. It would take a few hours of watching video sessions or reading the documentation to get started. It also helps to have an understanding of how API works, the architecture and how Selenium interacts with browsers. Having the background helps to design something with more features. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.  

The primary use of this solution is UI testing.

This has improved our organization through the automation of UI test cases.

The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel.

Selenium HQ easily integrates with other dependencies.

I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers.

I have been using Selenium HQ for five years.

We primarily use the solution for automation testing.

Nowadays we are using the solution to allow old solutions to run through it. This way, we don't need to go check functionalities created previously. We just run the automation. In just one click you run the automations through. It saves a lot of time and allows us to focus on other things.

The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer. 

It's excellent for analysis automation testing.

You can use the solution on many different browsers as well.

The solution need to  offer up much more information in regard to performance testing using selenium.

The solution is very scalable. You just have to have an understanding of how you are going to use it before you proceed. We do plan to increase usage in the future.

Technical support is very good; I'd rate it seven or eight out of ten.

We also use ReadyAPI alongside Selenium. We're working to integrate the two to have an overall more powerful performance.

The initial setup was straightforward, however, it does depend on what the organization's requirements are. Deployment can take up to one or two months.

The solution is open-source; you don't have to pay a licensing fee.

We're using the on-premises deployment model.

It is an open-source solution and you are able to build vertically. There is also lots of support pertaining to Selenium such as videos on YouTube. It's very easy to integrate on different platforms.

The solution is constantly being updated and advanced; it's very reactive and in a constant state of change. 

I'd rate it seven out of ten.