We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter 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."It is an open-source tool that is easy to use. It can be easily integrated with multiple tools, including Selenium."
"The recording and playback functionality is helpful."
"API testing, Database Testing, and MQ testing can be done with ease."
"User-friendly and open source."
"We are using it just for load testing. We are using its free version, and it is scalable."
"To me, what's most valuable in Apache JMeter is that it's a lightweight tool for application testing. It's the best load-testing tool for my company because Apache JMeter simulates your application during testing. Apache JMeter also creates threads with good server utilization. Apache JMeter allows you to focus on analyzing the situation, looking into measurements, response time, and client-server responses, which I find valuable."
"The solution is free. You don't need to worry about licensing costs."
"It's very easy to install, and it's very easy to code and develop the script."
"What I like the most about this product is that it gives us a lot of freedom to code anything, there is no restriction on the type of function you can do."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"The solution is very easy to implement."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits."
"Apache JMeter may have difficulty recognizing dynamic objects in some critical cases, which can lead to challenges in terms of object identification."
"I sometimes found the documentation to be not as explanatory as I would've liked it. In the cases that I can think of, I was looking for a rather hand-holding approach with Step A, B, and C, but then I realized that with a product that is open source like this, you can't do handholding. That is because there are so many different uses and different unique environments and setups for it, but I remember thinking a few times that if they only just said this."
"Given that Apache JMeter is a free and open-source tool, documentation improvement may not be a major concern, as it is mostly contributed on a voluntary basis. The essential information is already available. However, in terms of the interface, there are occasional bugs, and the tool may not address them as quickly as some users would like. Fixing defects and bugs might take a considerable amount of time, with users sometimes having to wait for several months or even a year for the next release to address specific issues."
"Both scalability and stability could be improved in Apache JMeter."
"Apache JMeter could use improvement in reporting. Currently, it isn't easy to generate reports in PDF format. While receiving reports in PDF format is possible, it requires a lot of customization. Additionally, when comparing the load test to others solutions it could improve."
"Automation is difficult in JMeter."
"In future releases, it would be helpful if there was an integration with ALM Octane."
"The solution needs more metrics for reporting."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"We'd like to see some more image management in future releases."
"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 uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"I would like to see some reporting or test management tools."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"When we upgrade the version, some features are missing. I want the product to include some AI capabilities."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and OpenText LoadRunner Professional, 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.
