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

OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs Selenium HQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.3
Users find OpenText LoadRunner Professional provides strong ROI by improving performance, reducing outages, and saving costs through efficiency.
Sentiment score
7.6
Selenium HQ reduces testing time, achieves 60% ROI, requires Java developers, and improves efficiency up to 55% in a week.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.1
OpenText LoadRunner Professional's support is generally efficient but inconsistent, with users rating it between six to nine.
Sentiment score
6.1
Selenium HQ offers no direct support; users rely on community forums and online resources for assistance with issues.
If I need to rate support from one to ten, I would say it is a nine.
The marketplace community and forums are what we browse and look after, and we have found solutions whenever we tried to find anything.
I have not had the need to escalate questions to Selenium HQ tech support recently, as open community support is widely available and has been sufficient for our needs.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText LoadRunner Professional excels in scalable user loads and supports cloud integration, despite cost and resource challenges.
Sentiment score
7.5
Selenium HQ is scalable with technical expertise, enabling parallel testing, but scalability varies by framework design.
We can execute thousands of test cases weekly, and our automation coverage using Selenium HQ is approximately eighty-five percent.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is highly stable and reliable, with occasional issues during large tests and minor compatibility challenges.
Sentiment score
7.1
Selenium HQ is generally stable but faces issues with Internet Explorer and new browsers needing maintenance and proper test architecture.
Selenium HQ is a scalable solution; it has been in production for the last two years, but I have been working on it for the last six years, so it is definitely scalable.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText LoadRunner Professional requires simplified use, affordable pricing, better support, and improved integration with modern technologies and tools.
Users want better browser support, integration, simplified setup, clearer documentation, auto-healing, AJAX improvement, and frequent updates.
I find that AI functionality in OpenText LoadRunner Professional should be improved and more accessible.
An automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
I don't know if we have that capability to provide different data sources such as SQL Server, CSV, or maybe some other databases, so that kind of capability would be great.
 

Setup Cost

LoadRunner's costly licensing is offset by comprehensive features, making it ideal for large-scale testing, despite cost-effective alternatives.
Selenium is open-source and free, but setup and maintenance may require investment in developer skills and expertise.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText LoadRunner Professional offers robust scripting, protocol support, scalability, and detailed analysis for efficient large-scale performance testing.
Selenium HQ offers cost-free, open-source cross-browser testing, supports multiple languages, frameworks, and facilitates integration with CI tools.
The most valuable feature of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is the analysis part that is really good, along with the support for multiple protocols.
Selenium HQ supports multiple browsers via grid hosting and offers dynamic configuration setup for testing across Chrome, Edge, and Internet Explorer.
When we were doing these tests manually, it took several hours of effort, and those hours, when counted on the basis of person days, used to be maybe six or seven months of effort, which we can now do every day by running the pipeline.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText LoadRunner Profess...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (4th), Load Testing Tools (4th)
Selenium HQ
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
112
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (6th), Regression Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is designed for Performance Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 13.9%, up 13.4% compared to last year.
Selenium HQ, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 3.6% mindshare, down 5.2% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HelenSague - PeerSpot reviewer
A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications
I do not have any big challenges with LoadRunner. I only have some issues with load generators. It is a very common issue, and I hope it will be resolved in the latest release. For example, when we start to run our tests, users get the message that the load generator exceeded 80% of the CPU utilization. Even when the number of users is less, we get these messages. I am trying to resolve it, but it is not going. It is annoying. It is not a failure, but I hope that it will be resolved. IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on.
Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation in testing processes sees improvement with multi-browser support and easier website interactions
Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks. The tool could simplify object identification, enabling users to generate XPaths without requiring detailed DOM understanding. Additionally, an automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
854,338 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Apr 13, 2014
LoadRunner vs NeoLoad
The six phases of an IT project Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent (the performance tester) Praise and rewards for the incompetent non-participants This article has been put together as part of an evaluation of the performance test tools NeoLoad and…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
When designing a workload model offers a good range of possibilities for creating goal-oriented scenarios, which helps us understand and meet SLAs.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
Technical support needs to be faster, and the pricing should be more competitive. The virtual table server feature should be reintroduced. Some AI capabilities should be added. There should be an '...
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?
I will give an eight for my satisfaction with the pricing and licensing costs of Selenium HQ.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
SeleniumHQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Perforce, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: May 2025.
854,338 professionals have used our research since 2012.