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.

I use Selenium HQ in my software testing workflows with applications on Microsoft Technologies, as well as Java-based applications. When our pipeline runs, I integrate these Selenium automated test packs as part of the pipeline.

Once the software packages are deployed on a designated server, I launch the test scripts using Selenium HQ. All the capabilities are added on the dedicated server, and then it executes, and then we get the results, so it's all an automated process.

The challenges I faced while integrating Selenium HQ into my existing systems relate to historical data, which requires going back six years. I have to traverse if there were any challenges because I am sure if there were any, they must have been documented in our ALM documents.

The multi-browser support of Selenium HQ impacts my testing process primarily since it is being used in Edge and Chrome browsers. It all depends on our customers. I haven't heard of any challenges with other browsers such as Opera or Mozilla Firefox, as these two browsers are what we primarily use.

When we were doing these tests manually, it took several hours of effort, and those hours, when counted on the basis of person days, used to be maybe six or seven months of effort, which we can now do every day by running the pipeline. This has definitely saved a lot of money for us.

In terms of drawbacks or downsides and room for improvements in Selenium HQ, there is the data load which we use for testing the applications.

Currently, we are using Excel as our data source. I don't know if we have that capability to provide different data sources such as SQL Server, CSV, or maybe some other databases, so that kind of capability would be great.

I have been using Selenium HQ for the last six years, and it's stable with a rating of nine or ten.

It was easy to deploy Selenium HQ. Initially, we had some challenges, but we overcame all those challenges.

Selenium HQ is a scalable solution; it has been in production for the last two years, but I have been working on it for the last six years, so it is definitely scalable. We started with something, and now we are at a level where it's a very important part of our deployment life cycle.

I would rate the scalability of Selenium HQ as an eight.

We haven't had any requirement for technical support because I have people who are technically equipped. The marketplace community and forums are what we browse and look after, and we have found solutions whenever we tried to find anything, so we didn't reach out to the technical support team yet.

Positive

I was using SmartBear in my previous organization, but not now.

We did try the SoapUI from SmartBear, but there were limitations that we couldn't manage at that specific point in time, which is why we moved over to Selenium HQ.

The deployment took only a few hours.

I did the installation all by myself without any help.

I would give around 50 to 55% as the metrics for efficiencies gained.

I will give an eight for my satisfaction with the pricing and licensing costs of Selenium HQ.

I use both on-premises and cloud versions of Selenium HQ.

I am not really working with this product right now.

AI technology is not something which I have initiated yet, but I think there will be an option; I haven't explored that, but this question would require me to go back to my QA team.

I do recommend Selenium HQ to other organizations because we are in a business that is primarily based on B2B interface. I recommend it to our customers and partner network, and if someone asks for any automation or performance load test tool, Selenium HQ is what we recommend. There is also a free version, Selenium WebDriver, so people can just go and start their automation journey using these Selenium WebDrivers.

I would give the overall final rating for Selenium HQ a nine.

The primary use case for Selenium HQ is for automation in testing processes. We are currently using Selenium HQ for synthetic data generation, extended with third-party tools like LambdaTest, and integrated with Azure DevOps. This setup is part of our test plan and pipeline integration.

Selenium HQ is a widely used open source tool that makes it easier to understand and automate websites. It is suitable for all functional business scenarios and can be easily incorporated into workflows. New features in Selenium HQ make object identification easier without reliance on XPath and CSS. The tool offers mouse-click actions and supports customizable and user-friendly recent libraries. Additionally, Selenium HQ supports multiple browsers via grid hosting and offers dynamic configuration setup for testing across Chrome, Edge, and Internet Explorer.

Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks. The tool could simplify object identification, enabling users to generate XPaths without requiring detailed DOM understanding. Additionally, an automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.

I have been working with Selenium HQ since it started, around 2012 or 2013. This translates to approximately twelve to fourteen years of experience.

I have not noticed any performance issues or limitations with Selenium HQ regarding stability. However, I might need to check with my team to confirm this as I am handling multiple projects.

I have not noticed any issues with the scalability of Selenium HQ. We can execute thousands of test cases weekly, and our automation coverage using Selenium HQ is approximately eighty-five percent.

I have not had the need to escalate questions to Selenium HQ tech support recently, as open community support is widely available and has been sufficient for our needs.

Before starting to use Selenium HQ, we used QTP and Coded UI for automation. We switched to Selenium HQ as it started evolving due to its open source nature and increasing capabilities.

The initial setup for Selenium HQ was straightforward for me due to my extensive experience. However, the lack of automatic updates and the need for manually keeping browser drivers like ChromeDriver updated is an area for potential improvement.

Based on my experience, I would recommend Selenium HQ to others, especially for projects where budget constraints exist and web-based applications require multi-browser support. I rate Selenium HQ between eight and nine out of ten.

I primarily use Selenium HQ as an open-source tool to test my applications. I create test scripts using Java as the programming language, then run those test scripts on my machines with the application in the background. We run our tests on multiple browsers and generate reports to compare application performance on different browsers.

It is a solution that automates your browsers with web driver, which drives the native browser. It includes Selenium IDE, where we can put out all the commands and the control flows. The entire end-to-end application testing happens using Selenium.

The most valuable features of Selenium HQ include WebDriver and the remote framework, which is compatible with Selenium and is mostly helpful for me. Selenium HQ's compatibility with multiple browsers impacts my testing efficiency significantly, as it allows me to run tests on various browsers and generate comparative analysis reports. Selenium automates browsers easily with its web driver, and Selenium IDE facilitates end-to-end testing with its command and control flows.

Documentation is good, but it lacks real-time examples. Providing real-time examples would be really helpful. Some parts are not automatable, especially CAPTCHAs and complex applications where objects are not identified properly. This requires manual intervention and object identification adjustments, which can be time-consuming.

I have been working with Selenium HQ for two years.

Selenium HQ is quite stable. The downtime issues are generally related to the machines, not the application itself. The software stops working only if the machine on which it is running goes down.

The scalability of Selenium is rated around eight to eight point five. It is very beneficial for running tests on multiple browsers and different machines, including Windows and VDI machines.

There is comprehensive documentation available online for Selenium HQ. Additionally, internet communities respond quickly to queries, usually within one or two hours, providing good support. Kubernetes services are also an available support resource.

Positive

We used Windrunner and HP Quality Center long ago. Then we switched to Selenium because it's easy to understand, code, and install. It is also mostly free, making it very helpful.

The initial setup is rated eight to nine on ease, as it's simple to install and use. If coding is done in a proper methodology, object identification becomes easier. The whole setup on a machine barely takes ten minutes.

Deployment can be managed by a single person who can run multiple tests, thereby saving on human resources.

Selenium is easy to install and mostly free, so there's no need for a license. This lack of costs makes it an attractive option.

We evaluated Windrunner and HP Quality Center before choosing Selenium.

Selenium is easy to use, with a straightforward setup and many reusable features. It is advisable for new users to explore its features and leverage its form and page update model capabilities. For example, maintenance is simplified because changes made to a base function automatically reflect on all pages.

Selenium's major use cases are UI and web automation, primarily for the front end of a website. We also use it for API automation using other libraries called RestAssured. The programming language can be Java, C Sharp, or anything, but we are mostly using Java. For mobile automation, we use Selenium with APM.

Productivity-wise, Selenium helps us in regression testing, which we need to repeat every sprint and during every release cycle. Though development may take some time, we are now utilizing AI tools like ChatGPT, which makes it faster to develop the code. Cost-wise, it provides savings because it's open source, so we do not have to bear any cost of the tool itself.

Selenium is an open-source tool. It provides the flexibility to automate anything and everything. You can build custom libraries and integrate them with third-party libraries across the globe. It gives freedom to integrate with any other tool and build your custom solutions. It also integrates well with test management and project management tools like Jira, Manta, and Azure DevOps.

In the future, Selenium should be able to automate desktop-based applications, as it is not currently able to handle non-web-based, Windows-based applications. Additionally, there is a need for Selenium to be more user-friendly, allowing users from all backgrounds to automate test cases without requiring too much coding knowledge.

Selenium has been in use for more than 14 years.

For stability, I would rate it a seven out of ten.

I believe Selenium is scalable, and I'd rate it a nine out of ten.

There is a community in which you can post your questions, and you do get answers there.

Positive

Recently, I worked with Katalon. Then, I worked with WebDriverIO with Node.js.

The setup experience is much easier these days. You no longer need to manually download dependent files like JAR files. You can easily go to the Maven repository and get all of the dependencies. Setup has become more straightforward, and I would rate it around seven out of ten.

Being an open-source tool, Selenium's cost is completely free, and there are no licensing fees.

In addition to Selenium, we are using Playwright and Myspro for mobile automation in different projects.

For users starting with automation, I recommend learning Selenium with any language they're comfortable with, such as Java, C Sharp, Python, JavaScript, or Ruby on Rails. It sets up a foundation for any tester wanting to explore automation testing.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

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 Selenium HQ for web-based test automation.

Selenium HQ allows us to customize our automation scripts, which has been beneficial as we can develop our own logic. This flexibility, combined with the introduction of large language models (LLMs), has made our test automation faster and quicker. Additionally, Selenium HQ being a free tool saves a lot of money and time for our organization.

The core features of Selenium HQ are the most valuable. This includes driving the web, reporting, and parallel execution. The ability to customize our approach to using Selenium HQ is particularly beneficial.

There is a need for an auto-healing feature that can address script failures due to changes in the front end. This feature is claimed to be in development, and if it works as intended, it would help address a significant challenge we face.

I have been working with Selenium HQ for the last two to three years.

Selenium HQ provides a high level of stability, which increases our test coverage.

The high level of scalability has allowed us to improve our test coverage.

I have not communicated directly with Selenium HQ's technical support. I use the available documentation online and third-party tools like Stack Overflow and Yellow Lab.

Positive

Setting up Selenium HQ is straightforward. Before I joined, it was already deployed in our organization. Deploying new applications takes less than a day.

The primary advantage is that things get automated, saving a lot of money and time. Exact figures are not available, but the time savings are significant.

I rate the pricing of Selenium HQ as very affordable. We hardly incur any cost.

It might be a little tough in the beginning, but users will get used to it over time.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I use the product for testing automation in personal and professional projects. I have used it to automate background procedures for accessing websites, and I typically run it in a browser environment using Chrome or Firefox plugins.

The platform has been quite beneficial for automating repetitive tasks, particularly accessing and retrieving website data. It significantly reduces manual testing efforts and improves efficiency in workflow processes. While it has streamlined certain operations, there are challenges due to unclear documentation, which sometimes creates bottlenecks.

The platform's most valuable features are the browser plugins for Chrome and Firefox, as they are simple to use and integrate well with my workflow. It also allows for the automation of specific development tasks, enhancing productivity.

One key area for improvement is the documentation. It is difficult to navigate, especially when integrating with other frameworks. Clearer guidance on best practices and more streamlined workflows are needed.

I recommend building an ecosystem around it that allows easier integration with other project management and communication tools, such as Slack or Jira, to facilitate collaboration and streamline the testing process.

I have been using Selenium HQ for about ten years.

The product is quite stable; I rate its stability as a nine out of ten. It performs well under most conditions.

The solution's scalability is adequate for most tasks. While I haven't tested it on a large scale, it has proven reliable in smaller environments.

I have not contacted customer service directly, but I have used online resources and community forums to resolve any issues I encountered.

The initial setup was somewhat complex due to the unclear documentation, particularly when configuring the server and integrating it with other tools.

The implementation was done in-house.

Selenium is open-source, so there are no setup costs associated with it. 

If you are new to Selenium, I recommend leveraging online forums and community support to navigate the setup process and address any challenges. The documentation may only sometimes provide clear answers, but the community is a great resource.

Overall, I rate it a nine out of ten. 

What I like best about it is that it can automate everything on the front end with the help of other frameworks. The community worldwide provides support for any issues. Plus, it’s open-source, which is a big advantage.

The solution integrates with every programming language and library and is very easy to use. It has a simple syntax, and the documentation on the website makes it straightforward to learn and implement.

The solution could be improved regarding communication with browsers, as it is slower and a bit tricky compared to other frameworks. However, with the latest changes involving BiDirectional communication, it is becoming a top choice in automation frameworks.

I haven't had any issues with the solution's stability. 

Selenium HQ's scalability depends on the framework you build around it. Selenium HQ itself is just a front-end tool, not a full framework. It can handle thousands of applications. We use TestNG with the Java programming language framework, which offers high scalability.

We have a lot of resources and support from people worldwide who can answer questions and answers. 

Before using Selenium HQ, I used Robot Framework. It's also open-source and built on top of Selenium HQ, acting as a wrapper around it. However, the core functionality still relies on Selenium HQ.

The tool's initial setup is easy since it is open-source, and anyone can add features or use it without any cost or company restrictions.

The product is open-source and free. 

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. For QA professionals planning to do front-end automation, I highly recommend Selenium HQ. It's the oldest automation tool and has support from a global community.