We performed a comparison between RadView WebLOAD 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 solution is simple and useful."
"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"It is a good automation tool."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug."
"There is no analytical dashboard."
"The reporting side of things is really complicated. It's difficult to get out exactly what you're looking for, there are almost too many options."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
"If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting."
"It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"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 would like to see some reporting or test management tools."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
RadView WebLOAD is ranked 11th in Performance Testing Tools with 9 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. RadView WebLOAD is rated 8.2, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of RadView WebLOAD writes "IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process but the reporting is complicated". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". RadView WebLOAD is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter and k6 Open Source, 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.