We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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 Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period."
"It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it."
"I like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good."
"LoadRunner is a very systematic tool for anyone to use. Even someone who is actually a first time user of LoadRunner can actually get a lot of benefit out of the tool."
"I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional's stability at eight out of ten."
"LoadRunner is a very sophisticated tool, and I can use many languages. For example, I can use Java. I can use C++. I can test the Internet of Things, FTP, mail, and Active Directory. It is very useful."
"I appreciate its ability to handle various internal calls and its user-friendly interface."
"LoadRunner Professional allowed us to load test potential new payroll solutions that would be implemented throughout the entire organization so that we knew which was best suited to performing well under pressure."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"It is very stable."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved."
"The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays."
"I recently just got to see LoadRunner Developer, but it is still not fully developed to use."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"The flexibility could be improved."
"The price of this solution should be cheaper."
"You should be able to use LoadRunner as a single platform. You should be able to have browser based access. You should be able to run enterprise tests."
"We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support."
"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."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"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."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 76 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". 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 Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and Automai AppLoader, 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.