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

"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."
"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"Using service virtualization, we are able to accelerate the testing and development activity."
"This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."
"All IBM testing tools are really well integrated."
"Hot tool in market. Makes thing easier to use and implement."
"Selenium is a freeware tool, through which I am using Java for automating our project testing and with its feature grid and a different browser, I can do the functional testing."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"What I like the most is that it is fast, and when comparing, it is faster than HQ QTP and supports multiple processes, which is great."
"Reduces manpower, testing has become much faster which is helpful for faster project delivery."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"Selenium is now being implemented for testing in many browsers, e.g. IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, Edge, etc., and we have implemented it in many other features in the form of a framework."
"Our clients have realized benefits by reducing their testing cycle from three days to three hours through Selenium."
 

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."
"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."
"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."
"Rational Performance Tester supports cloud technology in the version 8.7, playing test scripts back on the cloud is not stable."
"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%."
"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 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."
"The webdriver communication with the browser is not perfect, especially IE. The longer the test is the higher the chance it will break down."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line."
"We'd like to see some more image management in future releases."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
 

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."
"This is an open-source product that can be used free of charge."
"Selenium is free software so we do not pay licensing costs."
"Selenium is open-source, so there are no setup costs associated with it."
"It is free to use."
"We are using Selenium open-source, so there is no need to purchase anything."
"Since it is an open source. It is free to use. However my company see it as the future of load testing."
"There is no pricing cost. License is Apache License 2.0."
"It's an open-source tool that you can work with at any time without any cost."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
917,884 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
10%
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.
917,884 professionals have used our research since 2012.