We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Testim 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."The tool is easy to use and log in with respect to other tools. It is open-source. We can customize the product. I also like its security."
"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."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"The product is easy to use."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"Selenium could offer better ways to record and create scripts. IDE is available, however, it can be improved."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Testim is ranked 17th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Testim is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Testim writes "A stable tool to help users take care of the implementation phases in their environment". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test, whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Functionize, Testsigma and Ranorex Studio. See our Selenium HQ vs. Testim 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.