We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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."The product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"It is feature-rich. It supports most protocols, which is important because I am in charge of a team at the bank, and we do performance testing for all kinds of different applications. We have tons of them. We even do video streams."
"The usability and ability to integrate with other solutions is quite good. When I use it in on Azure, then Red Hat is the most likely solution I use. When I use AWS, then I tend to use Lambda functions. In either case, it works well and you can use it either way."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The TruClient feature is the most valuable for us. An application with testing can only be scripted using TruClient, so it's part web-based, but it also has its own protocol combined with HTTP and HTML. So many other tools do not recognize this specific proprietary protocol. Using TruClient, we can still create scripts that cover everything that we need to cover."
"The solution can scale."
"The most valuable feature is that we do not have to accommodate the load-testing infrastructure in our own data center."
"One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols."
"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."
"It is very stable."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"For me, the most valuable feature of Selenium lies in its ability to help us find elements quickly. Apart from that, the driver interface is really useful, too. When we implement the Selenium driver interface, we can easily navigate through all of the pages and sections of an app, including performing things like clicking, putting through SendKeys, scrolling down, tagging, and all the other actions we need to test for in an application."
"My customer previously validated every file and it would take almost 15-20 minutes for a document. They used to randomly select and test only 100 out of the thousands, maybe 85,000, files, to pick up sampling. Each file would take around 20 to 25 minutes, so we were not able to do it manually, but with the help of Selenium, we were able to test all the files in two days. It saves a lot of time."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"Its scripting features need improvement."
"Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved."
"One area of improvement in the software's support is the replaying of captured data within the development environment. It would be beneficial if the replay feature could accurately mimic what the actual application is doing for better analysis and testing."
"I'd like to see more ability to dive more deeply into the configuration."
"There is a steep learning curve for the product, too."
"The product must provide agents to monitor servers."
"It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need."
"We did have some challenges with the initial implementation."
"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."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"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."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud writes "Enterprise modeling, server maintenance, and competitive pricing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter and Apache JMeter, 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.
