We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Test Workbench, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, 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."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."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to configure browser settings for different operating systems and on different versions without the need to install every single version on each machine and to manage them."
"The beauty of LoadRunner Cloud is that we can use the load generator that is hosted by us on-premises, and we also have the option to use their hosted load generator. If it is a public-hosted application, we can also use their public-hosted load generator, but in our case, all our applications are hosted in our data center, so we are using the on-premise load generator. We have the option to deploy those load generators as we want."
"It's fast, easy to use, has a user-friendly UI, and you can split users."
"One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols."
"The reports are very relevant to the customers’ expectations."
"The most valuable feature is that we do not have to accommodate the load-testing infrastructure in our own data center."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The solution can scale."
"The solution is very easy to implement."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"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."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"The solution is free to use."
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"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."
"I'd like to see more ability to dive more deeply into the configuration."
"Sometimes, you are utilizing one of the low generators, then all of a sudden if you discontinue from one project, it actually deletes the entire low generator."
"I don't know of any features that should be added. The solution isn't lacking anything at this point."
"We are trying to put it into a complete CI/CD pipeline, but there are still some challenges when you try to run it through different protocols. The challenges are around how you can containerize applications. There are some limitations to some protocols, such as desktop. And when it comes to database testing, there are some things that we can't do through CI/CD."
"One area for improvement in LoadRunner Cloud, especially for agile models, is its limited support for functional testing alongside its robust non-functional testing capabilities."
"Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved."
"An area for improvement is analytics on why response times are slow from certain countries."
"Their documentation is not technical enough for us. We would like to have much deeper technical documentation so that we can self-serve without constantly having to go back to them and ask."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"There are some tiny issues with SeleniumHQ. For example, with respect to the scraping tests. Sometimes, a website will have some hidden items or blockages that inhibit us from extracting data directly. It would be beneficial if Selenium could extract that information."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line."
"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."
"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."
Earn 20 points
