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."The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"There are various languages that they allow those programs to be written in, whether you want to use Java or something else."
"Very useful for finding out how the system responds to load, stress, and normal situations, as well as benchmarking with other industry competitors. It also improved our response time, memory delegation, and CPU delegation. In addition, we used LoadRunner to optimize our database and website."
"We don't find any features lacking. One of the most beneficial points we have from LoadRunner is we start sizing our infrastructure accordingly. So what we do is when we deploy a new workload, we do performance testing."
"The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"It is very stable."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"It is a good automation tool."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"What I like the most about this product is that it gives us a lot of freedom to code anything, there is no restriction on the type of function you can do."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"The monitoring technology in LoadRunner could be improved. It depends on another tool called SiteScope, but they only took a part of the features of SiteScope. They need to improve on that."
"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."
"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."
"We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
"The pricing model, selling model, and business model need to be adjusted. For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost."
"The debugging capability should be improved."
"I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support."
"The login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ"
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"One drawback to Selenium is that there is nothing like an object repository, such as that found in QTP, especially considering continuous integration practices that have become common nowadays."
"There are some tiny issues with SeleniumHQ. For example, with respect to the scraping tests. Sometimes, a website will have some hidden items or blockages that inhibit us from extracting data directly. It would be beneficial if Selenium could extract that information."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"Selenium could offer better ways to record and create scripts. IDE is available, however, it can be improved."
"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."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
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.