We performed a comparison between LambdaTest 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."We use the solution for automation testing and monitoring."
"Without a doubt, LambdaTest is one of the big reasons behind our faster deployment and better team collaboration."
"The Docker tunnel integration for local testing can be extremely useful to run on multiple instances in parallel."
"LambdaTest offers geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"The support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."
"Our test execution time was reduced to 16 mins from five hours when executed in parallel on multiple VMs. This has been extremely helpful!"
"Stability-wise, I have not experienced any downtime or other performance issues."
"The UI is pretty clean and easy to navigate, and we were able to figure it out very quickly."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"For me, the most valuable feature of Selenium lies in its ability to help us find elements quickly. Apart from that, the driver interface is really useful, too. When we implement the Selenium driver interface, we can easily navigate through all of the pages and sections of an app, including performing things like clicking, putting through SendKeys, scrolling down, tagging, and all the other actions we need to test for in an application."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"It is very stable."
"If possible to simulate the finger pinch, it would make it more realistic."
"Load flow compared to other stacks needs improvement."
"I think Lambdatest is a valuable tool for our team and things that have room for improvement would be mobile app testing, as it can be an important addition to the tool."
"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
"Improvements on a platform need to happen on a timely basis...There should be some new features coming up or some performance improvisation over a period of time."
"I've also had some issues with the speed of certain API calls and the rendering of data. For example, when I'm onboarding data, the process can be slow."
"It would be nice to have an API for visual regression testing."
"Performing automation testing from UI is a little slow and could be improved."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"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 drawback is the solution is not easy to learn."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 19 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. LambdaTest is rated 9.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of LambdaTest writes "Cost-effective, good integration, and parallel testing leads to good performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca and Perfecto, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our LambdaTest vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Functional 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.
