We performed a comparison between Bitbar and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"It's not too complicated to implement."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"My customer previously validated every file and it would take almost 15-20 minutes for a document. They used to randomly select and test only 100 out of the thousands, maybe 85,000, files, to pick up sampling. Each file would take around 20 to 25 minutes, so we were not able to do it manually, but with the help of Selenium, we were able to test all the files in two days. It saves a lot of time."
"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"I would like to see some reporting or test management tools."
"Selenium HQ can improve by creating an enterprise version where it can provide the infrastructure for running the tests. Currently, we need to run the test in our infrastructure because it's a free tool. If Google can start an enterprise subscription and they can provide us with the infrastructure, such as Google Cloud infrastructure where we can configure it, and we can run the test there, it would be highly beneficial."
"There are some tiny issues with SeleniumHQ. For example, with respect to the scraping tests. Sometimes, a website will have some hidden items or blockages that inhibit us from extracting data directly. It would be beneficial if Selenium could extract that information."
"Selenium HQ doesn't support Windows-based applications, so we need to integrate with the third-party vendor. It would be great if Selenium could include Windows-based automation. You need to integrate it with a third-party tool if you want to upload any files. When we interact with a Windows application, we usually use Tosca."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
Earn 20 points
Bitbar is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Bitbar writes "It's helped me when I've been short of devices and want to test whether the application will work on a specific device or not". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, Sauce Labs, CrossBrowserTesting and LambdaTest, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our Bitbar vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
