Software testing is essential for quality assurance, with automated techniques such as random testing and adaptive random testing being cost-effective solutions compared to others. Adaptive random testing seeks to enhance random testing, and there is a conception that adaptive random testing always should replace random testing. Our research question investigates this conception by addressing a gap in the literature, where a comparison between the two techniques in terms of certain key metrics is missing, namely defect detection efficiency and test case generation time. Defect detection efficiency is the amount of defects detected divided by the number defects in the system multiplied by one hundred. Test case generation time is the time it takes to generate all of the test case inputs. These metrics where chosen as they can be seen as a measurement of the techniques effectiveness and efficiency respectively. In order to address this research question we employ a quantitative experiment where we compare the performance of random testing and adaptive random testing with a sole focus on these two metrics. The comparison is performed by implementing and testing both algorithms on eight error-seeded numerical programs and measuring the results. The results displayed that adaptive random testing had a defect detection efficiency total average of 21.59% and a test case generation time total average of 35.37 (ms), while random testing had a defect detection efficiency total average of 22.28% and a test case generation time total average of 0.26 (ms). These results might contribute to disproving the conception that adaptive random testing always should replace random testing, as random testing evidently performed better on both the measured metrics.