Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs Selenium HQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Rational Test Workbench
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (18th), API Testing Tools (12th), Test Automation Tools (34th)
Selenium HQ
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
108
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (4th), Regression Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. IBM Rational Test Workbench is designed for Performance Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 0.4%, down 0.5% compared to last year.
Selenium HQ, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 4.6% mindshare, down 6.3% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

JP
Mar 14, 2021
Good reporting and interface, but supports limited types of protocols and requires low-level script editing
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.
Naveen Alok - PeerSpot reviewer
May 4, 2022
Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions
There are a few things we have to actually design and plan when we are building the automation. There are new tools which handle it by themselves, but that is a give and take when you actually use or choose a tool. 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. With these technologies, at times you have a lot of callbacks. Those aren't handled very well with Selenium. At some point of time, suppose you have entered something and the button needs to be enabled. Now, in normal terms, it seems to be a client side action, so if you enter something on the client side, JavaScript is running. It'll say, "Value is this, so I'll enable the button." With this technology, if you enter something, it will go back to the server, get some value, and then it will enable the button. At some point of time, your project's delayed, and there is a callback happening in the background. It will not try to understand that, and it may just timeout.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."
"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."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"Selenium is a valuable tool for web testing, and it integrates easily with frameworks like the Gauge framework, making it easier than others. It supports different programming languages, including Java and JavaScript."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
 

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."
"There are some synchronization issues"
"There is a need for an auto-healing feature that can address script failures due to changes in the front end."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"The login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ"
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
 

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."
"Selenium HQ is a free, open-source solution."
"It's open-source, so it's free."
"It's open-source, so there's no need to pay for a license."
"It is an open-source tool."
"Selenium HQ costs around $1000 per month, which is a bit high based on what they're offering."
"The solution is open source."
"It is free."
"This is an open-source product so there is no cost other than manpower."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Government
11%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
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 t...
What do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
Selenium is open-source, so there are no setup costs associated with it.
 

Also Known As

Rational Test Workbench, IBM Rational Performance Tester, IBM Functional Tester, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server
SeleniumHQ
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: November 2024.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.