Likelihood to Recommend When you have to test the UI and how it behaves when certain actions are performed, you need something that can automate the browsers. This is where Selenium comes to the rescue. If you have to test APIs and not the frontend (UI), I would recommend going with other libraries that support HTTP Requests. Selenium is good only when you have no choice but to run the steps on a browser.
Read full review The qTest is well-suited for organizations transitioning to Agile or DevOps frameworks. It Streamlines test management with real-time collaboration and integrates with popular CI/CD tools. It excels in complex, large-scale projects needing centralized test cases management, traceability, and detailed reporting. However, organizations on a tight budget might find it cost prohibitive compared to simpler, low-cost alternatives.
Read full review Pros For any web based UI automation, Selenium is the best tool out there to automate your tests. It supports multiple coding languages like Java, Python, Ruby, C# etc.. to choose from. There is a huge community of users and can get many answers on StackOverFlow. It has lot of other plugins to make your tests even more efficient. Read full review Highly customizable: we were able to organize our test cases in unique ways that made our work easier. Connectivity with Jira: being able to pull requirements information in from Jira was a big point for us. Standalone tool: Being a standalone tool on a dedicated server, we were able to have access to our tests regardless of whether our Jira server was down. Read full review Cons Selenium is pretty user-friendly but sometimes tests tend to flake out. I'd say roughly one out of twenty tests yields a false positive. Selenium software cannot read images. This is a minor negative because a free plug-in is available from alternate sources. Slowness may be a minor factor with Selenium, though this is an issue with basically any testing software since waiting on a site to execute JavaScript requires the browser to wait for a particular action. Read full review In requirements , we can't add multiple test cases at once, or search multiple cases at once, need to do one by one. Here actually qtest needs to improve. Linking cloud hosted qtest and on-premise TOSCA is very difficult especially when you are working with client system with security wall. It requires tunnelling software which is not recommended. Read full review Likelihood to Renew We love this product mainly because of its high customization abilities and the ease of use. Moreover, its free and can be learned easily through online communities and videos. The tests are more consistent and reliable as compared to Manual tests. It has enabled us to test a large number of features all in one go, which would have impossible through manual tests. The reports generated at the end of the tests are really helpful for the QA and the development teams to get a fair view of the application.
Read full review This has been a core QA management tool for our organization and integrates well with our other SDLC platforms (Azure DevOps/Jira/Katalon).
Read full review Usability As I mentioned earlier, the reason I use Selenium is because there is a fairly widespread community of users, and user support services are at a good level. because the application is open source, it works on many platforms (Windows, Linux, IOS) without any problems. In addition, it gives us a lot of options for writing functional tests. For errors that we receive through the application, we can easily find the reasons for errors in the forums.
Read full review qTest is actually intuitive and user-friendly, despite my other scathing review aspects
Nick Larsen Quality Assurance Manager - Application Development & Support
Read full review Support Rating Selenium does not have technical support available easily. You have to go through forums to get the information you need. However, there are excellent forums out there that make it easy to troubleshoot. The open-source flexibility makes it difficult to have dedicated support.
Read full review The actual answer is 0. I have never experienced worse support, whether personal or professional
Nick Larsen Quality Assurance Manager - Application Development & Support
Read full review Implementation Rating We did everything we needed to use it. Now we can execute our tests on different operational systems and browsers running few tests simultaneously. We also implemented Appium framework to execute our tests on mobile devices, such as iPhones, iPads, Android phones and tablets. We use SauceLabs for our test execution and Jenkins for continuous integration.
Read full review Again, supporting documentation could have been a lot better
Nick Larsen Quality Assurance Manager - Application Development & Support
Read full review Alternatives Considered At the time of adoption, there were not many other alternatives that were even close to being competitive when it comes to browser testing. As far as I know now to this day, there is still little competition to Selenium for what it does. Any other browser-based testing still utilises Selenium to interact with the browser.
Read full review Extensive integration options with various third-party tools, enabling seamless integration into existing workflows. Allows for flexibility and customization of workflows, fields, and permissions to adapt to unique testing requirements. Supports robust requirements traceability, ensuring comprehensive test coverage. Lastly management decisions too
Read full review Return on Investment There hasn’t been a downside to using it yet other than we’ve got to update the programs we create for each change. This has saved us hundreds of hours of manpower by allowing our automation engineer to rapid fire tests. We are able to screenshot and save entire sites before and after launch with a program the automation engineer created We can compare large volumes of data against data in excel docs with a program created using Selenium Read full review Better organization and centralization of test cases has led to more cohesive team collaboration Speed to delivery, deployments to production, are mostly maintained Performance issues have led to testing delays requiring the team to switch to other methods which contributed to QA bottleneck issues and sometimes even missed sprint commitments Read full review ScreenShots Tricentis qTest Screenshots