No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs Selenium HQ comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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 (16th), Test Automation Tools (27th)
Selenium HQ
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (5th), 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 2.0%, up 1.3% compared to last year.
Selenium HQ, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 4.3% mindshare, up 3.5% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM Rational Test Workbench2.0%
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)16.6%
Tricentis NeoLoad13.9%
Other67.5%
Performance Testing Tools
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Selenium HQ4.3%
Tricentis Tosca9.4%
OpenText Functional Testing8.5%
Other77.8%
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

"This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."
"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"IBM Rational integrates the testing software as Rational Test Workbench, which is quite convenient and efficient as it is able to automate the test scripts."
"Using service virtualization, we are able to accelerate the testing and development activity."
"All IBM testing tools are really well integrated."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"It is a good automation tool."
"Web-based application automation are mostly done using Selenium, and it's the right automation tool as a replacement for manual regression testing that indispensably reduces the testing time due to its cross-browser, parallel, and remote executions."
"It allowed us to be assured that basic functionality works fine and to be informed about bugs quickly."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"I believe Selenium HQ to be the best solution in the market for automating web applications"
 

Cons

"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."
"Rational Performance Tester supports cloud technology in the version 8.7, playing test scripts back on the cloud is not stable."
"Implementing custom functions is bit tedious job, as ECMA script does not support some of the standard java-script functions, Also the Script editor window is not user friendly."
"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."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"Selenium has problems with some objects."
"It takes such a long time to use this solution that it may be worth looking into other free solutions such as TestProject or Katalon Studio, or paid solutions to replace it."
"It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
 

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."
"It is free to use."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"Selenium HQ is open source and our use of it in our company is provided for free."
"The pricing is open source."
"There is no pricing cost. License is Apache License 2.0."
"Currently, Selenium HQ is free for customers."
"It is free."
"We are satisfied with the pricing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
916,771 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Construction Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Outsourcing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise33
Large Enterprise52
 

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 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.
What needs improvement with Selenium HQ?
Some improvements can be implemented as compared to Playwright, which is why I rate it seven out of ten.
 

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, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: October 2026.
916,771 professionals have used our research since 2012.