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."A very comprehensive tool that is good for performance testing."
"Paramterization and correlation are important features."
"Scaling is definitely one of the best features of this solution. There are no issues scaling to 10,000 or 20,000 concurrent users."
"The solution supports a lot of protocols."
"The load testing, reporting, and scripting features are all valuable features."
"LoadRunner is a very systematic tool for anyone to use. Even someone who is actually a first time user of LoadRunner can actually get a lot of benefit out of the tool."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports."
"Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"My customer previously validated every file and it would take almost 15-20 minutes for a document. They used to randomly select and test only 100 out of the thousands, maybe 85,000, files, to pick up sampling. Each file would take around 20 to 25 minutes, so we were not able to do it manually, but with the help of Selenium, we were able to test all the files in two days. It saves a lot of time."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"In terms of improvement, it lacks mobile testing features present in some competitors, like GitMatters, which I find valuable."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"The flexibility could be improved."
"LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved."
"I recently just got to see LoadRunner Developer, but it is still not fully developed to use."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
"Sometimes we are not be able to click on some of the buttons due to the screen mismatching and compatibility issues."
"The only scenario we see a complexity is when we have single-page applications where JavaScript is talking to the server and coming back. That's the only scenario where we find some difficulties."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
"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."
"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."
"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."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 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 "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and SmartBear LoadNinja, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA).
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.