We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Test Workbench 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 grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"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."
"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."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"What I like about Selenium HQ is that we wrote it ourselves. I think it's perfect. It's a framework that you can use to devise your own products, which is nice."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"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."
"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 would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"Selenium could offer better ways to record and create scripts. IDE is available, however, it can be improved."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"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."
"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."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
Earn 20 points
IBM Rational Test Workbench is ranked 18th in Performance Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. IBM Rational Test Workbench is rated 7.6, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Test Workbench writes "Good reporting and interface, but supports limited types of protocols and requires low-level script editing". 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 Test Workbench is most compared with HCL OneTest and Postman, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Telerik Test Studio, Worksoft Certify, Tricentis Tosca 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.