We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Functional Tester and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"The stability and performance are good."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"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."
"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"Selenium is good when the team is really technical because Selenium does less built-in methods. If it came with more built-in and pre-built methods it would be even easier for less technical people to work with it. That's where I think the improvement can be."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"We'd like to see some more image management in future releases."
"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."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"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."
More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 22nd in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 7.2, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Katalon Studio, HCL OneTest, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify and OpenText UFT One, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and froglogic Squish.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.