We performed a comparison between RadView WebLOAD 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."The solution is simple and useful."
"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"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."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution."
"It's not too complicated to implement."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"The solution is free to use."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
"There is no analytical dashboard."
"The reporting side of things is really complicated. It's difficult to get out exactly what you're looking for, there are almost too many options."
"If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting."
"When we upgrade the version, some features are missing. I want the product to include some AI capabilities."
"The reporting part can be better."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"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."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
RadView WebLOAD is ranked 11th in Performance Testing Tools with 9 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. RadView WebLOAD is rated 8.2, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of RadView WebLOAD writes "IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process but the reporting is complicated". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". RadView WebLOAD is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter and k6 Open Source, 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.