We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Functional Tester and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"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."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"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."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"In the beginning, we had issues with several test cases failing during regression. Over a period of time, we built our own framework around Selenium which helped us overcome of these issues."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"It would be awesome if there was a standalone implementation of Selenium for non-developer users."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 22nd in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th 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 "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". 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 froglogic Squish. See our IBM Rational Functional Tester vs. Selenium HQ report.
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.