We performed a comparison between 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."Its variety of testing tools for different applications is of great benefit, as well as its integration capabilities with other testing and monitoring solutions."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"I appreciate its ability to handle various internal calls and its user-friendly interface."
"There are various languages that they allow those programs to be written in, whether you want to use Java or something else."
"LoadRunner Professional allowed us to load test potential new payroll solutions that would be implemented throughout the entire organization so that we knew which was best suited to performing well under pressure."
"The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period."
"I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output."
"It is very stable."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"It is a good automation tool."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
"Support for Microsoft Dynamics needs improvement."
"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"I would like the solution to include monitoring capacity."
"Improvement wise, the pipeline should be enabled. It should be embedded as part of the tool itself rather than going with third-party tools. Monitoring should be more effective as well."
"The only scenario we see a complexity is when we have single-page applications where JavaScript is talking to the server and coming back. That's the only scenario where we find some difficulties."
"Sometimes, we aren't able to see an accurate page view while replying and executing the script. When you are navigating the application side by side, it needs to be displayed on a random viewer. Sometimes we will get a few applications, and we won't get others."
"Micro Focus has two separate products for web and mobile applications, which means you have to invest in both."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"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."
"It would be awesome if there was a standalone implementation of Selenium for non-developer users."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"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."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 76 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and Automai AppLoader, 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.