We performed a comparison between 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."The record and playback feature is the most valuable feature. It's all driven by the script, so it's a script-based tool where the background tracing starts. Java's background process does a lot of tracing. The process starts in the background. It sees what peaks of volumes that the process can handle. It's easy to use because it's script based, record, and playback. I"
"The product’s most valuable feature is the Vuser license; it allows us to reduce the cost as per requirement."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The solution can scale."
"The TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI."
"The most valuable feature is having load generators in countries where we don’t have access to them."
"The usability and ability to integrate with other solutions is quite good. When I use it in on Azure, then Red Hat is the most likely solution I use. When I use AWS, then I tend to use Lambda functions. In either case, it works well and you can use it either way."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The tool is easy to use and log in with respect to other tools. It is open-source. We can customize the product. I also like its security."
"You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"The solution is very easy to implement."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"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."
"There are three modules in the system that are different products packaged into one, and they can sometimes be difficult to figure out, so they should be better integrated with each other."
"We encounter hurdles while running the professional version for on-premise setup."
"Improvements to the reporting would be good."
"I would like for there to be better integration with other tools so that when you do load testing you can also do a security check."
"It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need."
"CI/CD integration could be a little bit better. When there's a test and if you see that there are high response times in the test itself, it would be great to be able to send an alert. It would give a heads-up to the architect community or ops community."
"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."
"If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"Selenium HQ doesn't support Windows-based applications, so we need to integrate with the third-party vendor. It would be great if Selenium could include Windows-based automation. You need to integrate it with a third-party tool if you want to upload any files. When we interact with a Windows application, we usually use Tosca."
"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."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud writes "Enterprise modeling, server maintenance, and competitive pricing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter and Apache JMeter, 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.
