For our project perspective, we have selected Selenium HQ because it needs to be UI based testing and multiple browser testing. For the UI web browser, we normally use Selenium HQ because wait conditions and these features are very good in the dropdown and handling the grids and tables. These features of Selenium HQ are very beneficial when compared to other tools. As we are an advertisement firm, we have some grids in our application. To manage those grids and shadowing of the applications, these tasks can be accomplished with Selenium HQ. Because of these capabilities, we selected Selenium HQ, which we determined was a suitable application.

The best features in Selenium HQ are particularly for testing. While setting up Selenium HQ in the Docker container and pushing those images into AWS, that is the actual flow. Selenium HQ handles WebDriver automation, driver management, and parallel execution in the Selenium HQ Hub. These three features are very beneficial for test automation.

The locators, dropdowns, buttons, and everything are handled effectively by Selenium HQ. Additionally, Selenium HQ is open source, making it accessible to anyone.

Some improvements can be implemented as compared to Playwright, which is why I rate it seven out of ten.

I have been using Selenium HQ for six and a half years.

It is stable. I have never encountered any concerning situations with Selenium HQ.

I am not currently doing Selenium HQ parallel execution, but I have done it previously. For multiple browser testing in Chrome, Edge, and Firefox, without parallel execution, it would take half a day. When using Selenium HQ Hub for parallel execution, I can complete it within a two-hour timespan.

I currently use Jenkins and Maven for framework development. The flow involves creating the project with Maven, and once test case execution is completed locally, we push the jobs to Jenkins. It automatically triggers the executions in Jenkins so everyone in the team can see the execution report and status.

I would rate the solution at 60% out of 100. Previously, troubleshooting was difficult. When test cases fail for various reasons, logs cannot explain everything, but logging is very important to get the failure results. For logging, Amazon Q will suggest where the log code needs to be included. In Jenkins, when the code is executed and results are viewed, we can easily identify where the error occurred and troubleshoot efficiently, reducing time by two to three hours.

I can recommend many packages with Selenium HQ. Wait conditions and numerous features are available to use. I recommend most of them to individuals. My overall rating for Selenium HQ is 7 out of 10.

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.

We use Selenium HQ for web automation. We are using C Sharp for development.

Using Selenium HQ helps us by executing tests quickly. It saves us time and reduces the need for manual testing of repetitive tasks, thereby reducing efforts.

The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are that it is free and allows using any programming language. Additionally, it supports different frameworks that are suitable for various projects.

There is a challenge with concurrent testing, where parallelization is not fully supported. Sequential tests depending on each other cannot be executed in parallel. This feature could be improved.

I have been using the solution for more than two years.

The stability of the product is good. There are no major issues.

The scalability rating would be around a seven to eight out of ten. There are still challenges with parallelization and testing.

There is enough help available online. Simple questions and repetitive tasks have a lot of available resources. However, finding help for customized scenarios can be challenging.

Positive

The setup process was simple. I managed to complete it by myself.

There are many products that depend on Selenium HQ. Protractor is one of them.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use the product for mobile and API testing purposes.

Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies. We can combine it with APM for mobile, API, and web testing.

They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps. Additionally, they could add more customization features for reporting.

We have been using Selenium HQ as partners for nine years.

The product is stable. However, it is impacted by the changes in UI. I rate the stability a seven out of ten.

We manage Selenium HQ for 20 customers. It is a scalable product and suitable for small to medium enterprises. It needs improvement in terms of supporting Windows devices.

I rate the scalability a seven or eight.

It is an open-source solution, and thus, we do not receive direct support services. We refer to relevant documentation and community articles to resolve most issues.

The initial setup for mobile app testing, especially when installing simulators, is complicated. Configuring simulators for Android and iOS platforms is time-consuming due to trial and error. Setting it up for mobile automation takes approximately one to two weeks. However, for web automation, the process is comparatively straightforward. It takes less than an hour to complete.

I rate the process a seven out of ten.

It is an open-source solution.

It's crucial for technicians to thoroughly evaluate whether the solution aligns with the end-to-end application needs, especially considering the complexity of enterprise applications. For leveraging features like ERP integration or mobile testing, it is better to understand the compatibility and support for specific devices.

I rate Selenium HQ a seven out of ten.