We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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 part of the product is the way you can scale the basic testing easily."
"I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself."
"The solution is a very user-friendly tool, especially when you compare it to a competitor like BlazeMeter."
"The solution supports a number of protocols."
"Provides the performance of load test applications and reliably on good reporting."
"You can test a huge variety of applications, not just web-based systems, but SAP, Oracle, web services, pretty much anything out in the market place, but it's mobile-based testing."
"For me, LoadRunner stands out, especially with its reporting capabilities, the graphs that can be generated, and the unique feature of measuring our application's response alongside our infrastructure metrics, such as CPU, memory, or disk usage, all presented in graph form. This is something other applications struggle to match."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"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."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"The solution is a very expensive tool when compared with other tools."
"While the stability is generally good, there are a few strange issues that crop up unexpectedly which affect consistent use of the product."
"I think better support for cloud-based load generators would help. For example, integrate with Amazon AWS so you can quickly spin up a load generator in the cloud, use it, spin it down."
"Sometimes, the code is not generated when we record the scripts in the backend."
"A room for improvement in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is that it should take multiple exhibitions for a particular scenario and have automatic trending for that. This will be a very useful feature that lets users look into how many exhibitions happened for the scenario and their performance, and you should be able to see the data within the Performance Center dashboard. For example, there's one scenario I'm focusing on multiple times in a month, and if I check five times, there's no way for me to see the trend and find out how it went with those five exhibitions. It would be great if the Performance Center has a view of all five exhibitions, particularly transaction by transaction, and how they happened. If Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise shows you the time trends, information about one exhibition to another, and how each performed, it'll be an immense feature, and that should be visible to every user. Reporting should be simpler in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. If I did a scenario with one exhibition now, and I did that scenario again, then I should be able to schedule that scenario for the exhibition, and if that scenario is executed multiple times, there should be the option to turn it into a single view that shows you all the transactions, how the performance was, what the trend graph is for a particular time, etc."
"We'd like the product to include protocol identifiers whenever a tester wants to test a new application."
"I have seen some users report some issues, but I have personally not had any issues."
"The support team needs to be more coordinated."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"Selenium could offer better ways to record and create scripts. IDE is available, however, it can be improved."
"It takes such a long time to use this solution that it may be worth looking into other free solutions such as TestProject or Katalon Studio, or paid solutions to replace it."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"The drawback is the solution is not easy to learn."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". 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 Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Apache JMeter, 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.