We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional's stability at eight out of ten."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation."
"The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"It is a good and stable tool."
"We don't find any features lacking. One of the most beneficial points we have from LoadRunner is we start sizing our infrastructure accordingly. So what we do is when we deploy a new workload, we do performance testing."
"I like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good."
"The most valuable feature depends on what we're doing at the time. In the past, the greatest feature was the ability to record and play back to produce a script. Another great feature is that we can monitor the system. They also support many protocols to perform load testing."
"Graph monitoring is a valuable feature."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"It is a good automation tool."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on."
"I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high-quality technical support, I rate the support a one."
"Instead of having too many graphs and tabs, use the analysis section to get a more simplified defect analysis."
"The tool needs to work on capture script feature."
"If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
"Improvement wise, the pipeline should be enabled. It should be embedded as part of the tool itself rather than going with third-party tools. Monitoring should be more effective as well."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"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."
"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."
"There are some tiny issues with SeleniumHQ. For example, with respect to the scraping tests. Sometimes, a website will have some hidden items or blockages that inhibit us from extracting data directly. It would be beneficial if Selenium could extract that information."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and SmartBear LoadNinja, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA).
We monitor all Performance 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.