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."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."
"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."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"Selenium HQ lets you create your customized functions with whatever language you want to use, like Python, Java, .NET, etc. You can integrate with Selenium and write."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"It is a scalable solution."
"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."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more."
"It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line."
"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."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"There are some synchronization issues"
Earn 20 points
IBM Rational Test Workbench is ranked 18th in Performance Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 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 , 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.
