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."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."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"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."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"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."
"One drawback to Selenium is that there is nothing like an object repository, such as that found in QTP, especially considering continuous integration practices that have become common nowadays."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
Earn 20 points
IBM Rational Test Workbench is ranked 18th in Performance Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 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 "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". IBM Rational Test Workbench is most compared with HCL OneTest, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test.
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.