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 most valuable features of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional are the separate module for scripting, execution analysis, and integration with a lot of new things pipeline areas. They keep updating their releases. Recently, they have released different versions, such as the professional and enterprise. They're coming up with new features which are good."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports."
"The stability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is very high. It is the leading tool for stability."
"It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to create performance test cases quickly and then execute them. It provides a lot of powerful features to do that very efficiently and effectively."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"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 price of this solution should be cheaper."
"We still have some issues with integration with things like SiteScope which, obviously, being another HPE product should be very straightforward, but there are always issues around that."
"The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays."
"I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator."
"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"The flexibility could be improved."
"If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"The login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ"
"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."
"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."
"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."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more."
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.