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

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

IBM Rational Test Workbench
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (18th), API Testing Tools (14th), Test Automation Tools (31st)
Selenium HQ
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (7th), 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 1.9%, up 0.5% compared to last year.
Selenium HQ, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 3.2% mindshare, down 4.0% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
IBM Rational Test Workbench1.9%
Apache JMeter12.8%
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)12.1%
Other73.2%
Performance Testing Tools
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Selenium HQ3.2%
Tricentis Tosca14.2%
BrowserStack8.1%
Other74.5%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1513668 - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Specialist, ITE at a government with 10,001+ employees
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.
Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
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.

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."
"The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
 

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."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It doesn't really concern me. Licensing is on a yearly basis."
"The pricing is a little bit on the higher side, although it is really good."
"Selenium is free software so we do not pay licensing costs."
"This product is open source and free. That was a huge deciding factor for us getting into it."
"It's open-source, so it's free."
"Selenium HQ costs around $1000 per month, which is a bit high based on what they're offering."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"The solution is open-source, so it is 100% free with no hidden charges."
"It is an open-source product, it is free for anyone to use."
"I have been using the open-source version."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,227 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
31%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Non Profit
9%
University
7%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise33
Large Enterprise51
 

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?
I will give an eight for my satisfaction with the pricing and licensing costs of Selenium HQ.
 

Also Known As

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

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, Perforce and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: January 2026.
881,227 professionals have used our research since 2012.