IBM Rational Test Workbench vs Selenium HQ comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
IBM Logo
222 views|140 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
SeleniumHQ Logo
4,862 views|4,160 comparisons
88% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

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.
To learn more, read our detailed Performance Testing Tools Report (Updated: May 2024).
771,170 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization.""Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."

More IBM Rational Test Workbench Pros →

"The stability and performance are good.""In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature.""I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support.""It is a good automation tool.""The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs.""Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits.""Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only.""Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."

More Selenium HQ Pros →

Cons
"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 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."

More IBM Rational Test Workbench Cons →

"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing.""We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications.""It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line.""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.""Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities.""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 HQ can improve by creating an enterprise version where it can provide the infrastructure for running the tests. Currently, we need to run the test in our infrastructure because it's a free tool. If Google can start an enterprise subscription and they can provide us with the infrastructure, such as Google Cloud infrastructure where we can configure it, and we can run the test there, it would be highly beneficial.""The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."

More Selenium HQ Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "The pricing is a little bit on the higher side, although it is really good."
  • "It doesn't really concern me. Licensing is on a yearly basis."
  • More IBM Rational Test Workbench Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It is free to use."
  • "There is no pricing cost. License is Apache License 2.0."
  • "It's open-source, so there's no need to pay for a license."
  • "Since it is an open source. It is free to use. However my company see it as the future of load testing."
  • "It is free."
  • "This product is open source and free. That was a huge deciding factor for us getting into it."
  • "We are satisfied with the pricing."
  • "It's an open-source tool that you can work with at any time without any cost."
  • More Selenium HQ Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    771,170 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Top Answer:Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate… more »
    Top Answer:Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
    Ranking
    18th
    Views
    222
    Comparisons
    140
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    5th
    Views
    4,862
    Comparisons
    4,160
    Reviews
    30
    Average Words per Review
    403
    Rating
    8.1
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Rational Test Workbench, IBM Rational Performance Tester, IBM Functional Tester, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server
    SeleniumHQ
    Learn More
    SeleniumHQ
    Video Not Available
    Overview
    IBM Rational Test Workbench provides a comprehensive test automation solution for mobile applications, regression testing, integration technologies and performance and scalability testing. It helps you build intelligent and interconnected enterprise applications that can be deployed on traditional and cloud infrastructures. With Rational Test Workbench, you can significantly reduce test cycle times, moving integration testing earlier in the development lifecycle.

    Selenium HQ is an umbrella project that includes a number of tools and frameworks that allow for web browser automation. In particular, Selenium offers a framework for the W3C WebDriver specification, a platform- and language-neutral coding interface that works with all of the main web browsers.

    Selenium is a toolset for automating web browsers that uses the best methods available to remotely control browser instances and simulate a user's interaction with the browser. It enables users to mimic typical end-user actions, such as typing text into forms, choosing options from drop-down menus, checking boxes, and clicking links in documents. Additionally, it offers a wide range of other controls, including mouse movement, arbitrary JavaScript execution, and much more.

    Although Selenium HQ is generally used for front-end website testing, it is also a browser user agent library. The interfaces are universal in their use, which enables composition with other libraries to serve your purpose.

    The source code for Selenium is accessible under the Apache 2.0 license. The project is made possible by volunteers who have kindly committed hundreds of hours to the development and maintenance of the code.

    Selenium HQ Tools

    These three main Selenium HQ tools have powerful capabilities:

    • WebDriver: If you are just starting out with desktop or mobile website test automation, you will be using WebDriver APIs. WebDriver controls the browser and executes tests using the automation APIs that browser vendors provide. This gives the impression that a real person is using the browser. Because WebDriver's API does not need to be compiled alongside application code, it is not intrusive. As a result, you can test the same application that you push live.

    • IDE: Develop your Selenium test cases using an IDE (integrated development environment). The most effective way to create test cases is to utilize this simple Chrome and Firefox extension. IDE uses Selenium commands that are already in use to record user activity in the browser with parameters set by the context of the element. This is an excellent approach to learning Selenium script syntax and will save you time.

    • Grid: You can run test cases on several machines and operating systems with Selenium Grid. The local end controls how the test cases are triggered, and the remote end automatically runs the test cases after they are triggered.

    Reviews from Real Users

    Selenium HQ stands out among its competitors for a number of reasons. Two major ones are its driver interface and its speed. PeerSpot users take note of the advantages of these features in their reviews:


    Avijit B., an automation tester at a tech services company, writes of the solution, “The driver interface is really useful. When we implement the Selenium driver interface, we can easily navigate through all of the pages and sections of an app, including performing things like clicking, putting through SendKeys, scrolling down, tagging, and all the other actions we need to test for in an application.”

    Another PeerSpot reviewer, a software engineer at a financial services firm, notes, “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."

    Sample Customers
    Financial Insurance Management Corp.
    BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company13%
    Government13%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm25%
    Computer Software Company22%
    Retailer10%
    Comms Service Provider6%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company17%
    Financial Services Firm14%
    Manufacturing Company9%
    Government7%
    Company Size
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business21%
    Midsize Enterprise6%
    Large Enterprise73%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business30%
    Midsize Enterprise27%
    Large Enterprise43%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business19%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise67%
    Buyer's Guide
    Performance Testing Tools
    May 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: May 2024.
    771,170 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    IBM Rational Test Workbench is ranked 18th in Performance Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th 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 "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". IBM Rational Test Workbench is most compared with Postman, 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.