We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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."We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly."
"We can measure metrics like hits per second and detect deviations or issues through graphs. We can filter out response times based on timings and identify spikes in the database or AWS reports."
"This is a product that has a lot of capabilities and is the most mature tool of its kind in the market."
"The product is very user-friendly."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise supports a lot of technologies. The existing performance testing that this tool is capable of is good. The protocols that are available are widely varied when compared to other performance testing tools."
"It's a very powerful tool."
"The most valuable part of the product is the way you can scale the basic testing easily."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"Selenium HQ lets you create your customized functions with whatever language you want to use, like Python, Java, .NET, etc. You can integrate with Selenium and write."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"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 Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"Micro Focus's technical support could be more responsive."
"I believe the data that demonstrates the automated correlations should be corrected."
"Currently, when we try open LRE we encounter cookie banner issues. However, I'm not sure if it is within the enterprise solution or with the vendors."
"We are expecting more flexible to use Jenkins in continuous integration going forward."
"They had wanted to change the GUI to improve the look and feel. However, since that time, we see a lot of hanging issues."
"Offering a direct integration feature would ensure a completely smooth experience."
"It would be good if we could look forward at the future technology needs we have. I would like to see Micro Focus provide more customer awareness around how LoadRunner can fulfill requirements with Big Data use cases, for example, where you do performance testing at the scale of data lakes... when it comes to technologies our company has yet to adopt, I would like to see an indication from Micro Focus of how one does performance testing and what kinds of challenges can we foresee. Those kinds of studies would really help us."
"It's not that popular on the cloud."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"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."
"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 we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"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."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". 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 Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad 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.