We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and SmartBear LoadNinja based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."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 primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support."
"Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"It's a very simple tool for performance testing."
"We are happy with the technical support."
"SmartBear LoadNinja is easy to use and implement."
"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."
"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"To simplify the development process, everyone needs to do a Selenium Framework to acquire the web application functions and features from Selenium methods."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"Selenium HQ can improve by creating an enterprise version where it can provide the infrastructure for running the tests. Currently, we need to run the test in our infrastructure because it's a free tool. If Google can start an enterprise subscription and they can provide us with the infrastructure, such as Google Cloud infrastructure where we can configure it, and we can run the test there, it would be highly beneficial."
"On a smaller scale, there will be no budget issues, but as we expand to a larger user base, I believe we will face some pricing challenges."
"As we ran the test, we couldn't see the real-time results of how the solution behaved for 200 to 400 virtual users."
"It needs time to mature."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews while SmartBear LoadNinja is ranked 14th in Performance Testing Tools with 3 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while SmartBear LoadNinja is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SmartBear LoadNinja writes "Easy to use with good documentation and helpful support". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas SmartBear LoadNinja is most compared with Apache JMeter, ReadyAPI Performance, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BlazeMeter.
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.