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."This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."
"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"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."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"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."
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
"Selenium is good when the team is really technical because Selenium does less built-in methods. If it came with more built-in and pre-built methods it would be even easier for less technical people to work with it. That's where I think the improvement can be."
"We'd like to see some more image management in future releases."
"It takes such a long time to use this solution that it may be worth looking into other free solutions such as TestProject or Katalon Studio, or paid solutions to replace it."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
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 102 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 "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". 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 OpenText Silk Test.
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.