We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Performance Tester and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, Microsoft, IDERA and others in Test Management Tools."It can support both web applications and mobile applications, and in certain cases, it can also support testing of desktop applications or software-based applications. You can write web applications, mobile applications, and software-based applications."
"Technical support is very good. I'm very satisfied with the assistance we've received so far."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"There are some features that Micro Focus LoadRunner provides, but they are not available in IBM Rational Performance Tester. They should include such features. It can also have more reports similar to what HP provides. It might also need some improvement in terms of the tools and support for other technology areas. Certain technologies are not supported by every tool. They need to support all sorts of technologies and platforms on which web applications and mobile applications are built. They need complete support for all sorts of technologies."
"The solution is not easily scalable. If you want to extend the solution, you need to purchase a different kind of license. You also have to work with the IBM team to assist in scaling."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
"Selenium is good when the team is really technical because Selenium does less built-in methods. If it came with more built-in and pre-built methods it would be even easier for less technical people to work with it. That's where I think the improvement can be."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"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."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
More IBM Rational Performance Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
IBM Rational Performance Tester is ranked 24th in Test Management Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. IBM Rational Performance Tester is rated 7.6, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Performance Tester writes "We can edit captured transactions and organize them by those for which we require performance metrics, but it lacks a set of manuals or guides that would take out some guess work". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". IBM Rational Performance Tester is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Tricentis NeoLoad and OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test.
We monitor all Test Management 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.