We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Test Workbench 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."Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"Selenium HQ lets you create your customized functions with whatever language you want to use, like Python, Java, .NET, etc. You can integrate with Selenium and write."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"There are a number of things that they can do to simplify the tools, but the most important thing that they need to do is simplify the installation."
"It should have more interfaces. In terms of interfaces or protocols, what you can do with Rational is far limited as compared to other products out there. What it does, it does great, but it only gives you limited types of protocols. It supports between 8 to 15 types of protocols, whereas other test tools give you 20 to 30 types of protocols with which you can do testing and convert to script. It records Javascript-based scripts, and you got to know a little bit of Java to basically be able to edit them, but the level of editing you got to do is very low. I like that, but the ability to edit the script is not as good as Parasoft or LoadRunner, which have C-Script."
"The latest versions are often unstable."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"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."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
Earn 20 points
IBM Rational Test Workbench is ranked 18th in Performance Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. IBM Rational Test Workbench is rated 7.6, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Test Workbench writes "Good reporting and interface, but supports limited types of protocols and requires low-level script editing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". IBM Rational Test Workbench is most compared with , 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.