Compare IBM Rational Functional Tester vs. Selenium HQ

IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 1 review while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 7.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Automatically adapts to changes, saving time and effort, but mobile app support is needed". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "An open-source tool that's flexible and stable". IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Selenium HQ, Micro Focus UFT One and SmartBear TestComplete, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Eggplant Functional and Telerik Test Studio.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Worksoft, SmartBear and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: February 2020.
398,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
The most valuable feature is the UI component tester.

Read more »

The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel.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 aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing.The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months.You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution.The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud.Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run.Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only.

Read more »

Cons
As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support.

Read more »

I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers.The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing.The solution's UI path needs to be modernized.Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear.The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem.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.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.Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
This product is open source and free. That was a huge deciding factor for us getting into it.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
398,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
24th
Views
2,455
Comparisons
1,808
Reviews
1
Average Words per Review
448
Avg. Rating
7.0
5th
Views
16,614
Comparisons
13,468
Reviews
8
Average Words per Review
309
Avg. Rating
8.3
Top Comparisons
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Also Known As
Rational Functional TesterSeleniumHQ
Learn
IBM
SeleniumHQ
Video Not Available
Overview
IBM Rational Functional Tester is an automated functional testing and regression testing tool. This software provides automated testing capabilities for functional, regression, GUI, and data-driven testing. Rational Function Tester supports a range of applications, such as web-based, .Net, Java, Siebel, SAP, terminal emulator-based applications, PowerBuilder, Ajax, Adobe Flex, Dojo Toolkit, GEF, Adobe PDF documents, zSeries, iSeries, and pSeries.

Selenium HQ is a suite of tools to automate web browsers across many platforms. Selenium runs in many browsers and operating systems and can be controlled by many programming languages and testing frameworks. Selenium consist of two types:

  1. Selenium WebDriver - create robust, browser-based regression automation suites & tests and scale & distribute scripts across many environments.
  2. Selenium IDE - create quick bug reproduction scripts and create scripts to aid in automation-aided exploratory testing.
Offer
Learn more about IBM Rational Functional Tester
Learn more about Selenium HQ
Sample Customers
EdumateBrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Top Industries
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm25%
Retailer20%
Software R&D Company10%
Comms Service Provider10%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company27%
Financial Services Firm14%
Comms Service Provider13%
Manufacturing Company6%
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Worksoft, SmartBear and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: February 2020.
398,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.