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 feature of this solution is reporting."
"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"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."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"What I like the most about this product is that it gives us a lot of freedom to code anything, there is no restriction on the type of function you can do."
"There is no analytical dashboard."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
"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."
"Selenium is good when the team is really technical because Selenium does less built-in methods. If it came with more built-in and pre-built methods it would be even easier for less technical people to work with it. That's where I think the improvement can be."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem."
"To simplify the development process, everyone needs to do a Selenium Framework to acquire the web application functions and features from Selenium methods."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
RadView WebLOAD is ranked 11th in Performance Testing Tools with 9 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 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 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.