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 most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"The solution is free to use."
"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."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"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."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"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."
"The reporting part can be better."
"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"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."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"To simplify the development process, everyone needs to do a Selenium Framework to acquire the web application functions and features from Selenium methods."
More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 21st in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th 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 "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". 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 Avo Assure.
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.