We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Performance Tester and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, IDERA, Microsoft and others in Test Management Tools."Technical support is very good. I'm very satisfied with the assistance we've received so far."
"It can support both web applications and mobile applications, and in certain cases, it can also support testing of desktop applications or software-based applications. You can write web applications, mobile applications, and software-based applications."
"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."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"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."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"The solution is not easily scalable. If you want to extend the solution, you need to purchase a different kind of license. You also have to work with the IBM team to assist in scaling."
"There are some features that Micro Focus LoadRunner provides, but they are not available in IBM Rational Performance Tester. They should include such features. It can also have more reports similar to what HP provides. It might also need some improvement in terms of the tools and support for other technology areas. Certain technologies are not supported by every tool. They need to support all sorts of technologies and platforms on which web applications and mobile applications are built. They need complete support for all sorts of technologies."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
"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."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"Sometimes we face challenges with Selenium HQ. There are third party tools that we use, for example for reading the images, that are not easy to plug in. The third party add-ons are difficult to get good configuration and do not have good support. I would like to see better integration with other products."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
More IBM Rational Performance Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
IBM Rational Performance Tester is ranked 25th in Test Management Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. IBM Rational Performance Tester is rated 7.6, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Performance Tester writes "We can edit captured transactions and organize them by those for which we require performance metrics, but it lacks a set of manuals or guides that would take out some guess work". 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 Performance Tester is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Tricentis NeoLoad and OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test.
We monitor all Test Management 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.