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."
"The most valuable feature is the real-time testing, which helps you to test your website on more than two thousand combinations of browsers and operating systems."
"LambdaTest offers geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"It is a scalable solution."
"This product offers out-of-the-box geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"Geolocation testing is as straightforward as ticking checkboxes of browsers, operating systems, and countries."
"Without a doubt, LambdaTest is one of the big reasons behind our faster deployment and better team collaboration."
"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"What I like the most about this product is that it gives us a lot of freedom to code anything, there is no restriction on the type of function you can do."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"The solution is very easy to implement."
"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."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"I believe Selenium HQ to be the best solution in the market for automating web applications"
"I would like to see all of the features available in the freemium plan so that I can test them."
"Their smart testing module needs improvement."
"I feel that the automated screenshot testing takes a little longer on MacOS sometimes."
"You cannot perform native-app testing, as they offer simulation for web testing only."
"Mobile application testing would be helpful for us."
"The analytics over the automation dashboard can be more intuitive."
"If possible to simulate the finger pinch, it would make it more realistic."
"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"We'd like to see some more image management in future releases."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"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."
"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."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 21 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. LambdaTest is rated 8.8, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of LambdaTest writes "Technical support should be improved, though it has great documentation". 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, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio and Perfecto, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA). 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.