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 solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"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."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"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 a highly stable solution."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"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."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"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."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem."
"Selenium could offer better ways to record and create scripts. IDE is available, however, it can be improved."
"We do not have enough resources or enough people to employ and hire. So, I'm hiring whoever I find, and they don't always have enough technical knowledge to operate Selenium."
"When we upgrade the version, some features are missing. I want the product to include some AI capabilities."
"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."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"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."
"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."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"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."
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 "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". 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.