We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Test Workbench, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, 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."Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."
"The solution helps my clients save time. It is easier to capture reports and improves product quality. The product helps to identify customer defects during performance tests and reduces workloads. The product has improved my client's user interaction. It has reduced peak load times."
"The stability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is very high. It is the leading tool for stability."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional are scripting and executing the tests."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation."
"The ability to do multithreading. That's available in any performance testing tool, but the number of protocols that this particular tool supports has been very good."
"The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period."
"Enables us to test most of the products and projects that we have across all the different technologies, without having to look at other tools."
"It is a good automation tool."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"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."
"Compared to some other vendors, there is a lack of community support."
"Micro Focus has two separate products for web and mobile applications, which means you have to invest in both."
"I also use the TrueClient feature for browser-based testing. I found the TrueClient feature to be a bit difficult to use and not very user-friendly for automating scripts."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional can improve the implementation of digital areas, such as digital testing, UI and native application, and native mobile applications."
"The debugging capability should be improved."
"IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on."
"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"The technical support of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. I had an issue with the licensing and their response time is slow. They can improve on this in the future."
"It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers. That's why it's not common for end-users, and especially for RPA activities or tasks. It's hard to automate tasks for end-users. If it will be easier, more user-friendly, and so on, perhaps it can be more interesting for this kind of user."
"The reporting part can be better."
"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."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"Shadow DOM could be improved and the handling of single page applications. Right now, it's a bit complicated and there are a lot of additional scripts required if you want to handle a single page application in a neat way."
"The latest versions are often unstable."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
