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."Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"Paramterization and correlation are important features."
"The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"The solution supports a lot of protocols."
"A very comprehensive tool that is good for performance testing."
"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."
"The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period."
"What I like the most about this product is that it gives us a lot of freedom to code anything, there is no restriction on the type of function you can do."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"I believe Selenium HQ to be the best solution in the market for automating web applications"
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support."
"You should be able to use LoadRunner as a single platform. You should be able to have browser based access. You should be able to run enterprise tests."
"Compared to some other vendors, there is a lack of community support."
"The flexibility could be improved."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high-quality technical support, I rate the support a one."
"LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved."
"There should be more integration with more open-source platforms."
"We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly."
"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."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
"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."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"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."
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.