We performed a comparison between IBM Engineering Test Management and OpenText LoadRunner Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Load Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"Integration with the other professional tools is a very strong advantage, so that we can have a traceability between the requirements and defects in Rational Team Concert. That's the most important aspect."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"The most valuable feature is that we do not have to accommodate the load-testing infrastructure in our own data center."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"The fact that the solution supports multiple protocols such as open source, VuGen, TruWeb, TruClient, and SAP is very important because these protocols help us to concentrate on what is really needed to produce performance tests. If something is not supported, you have to use other tools or find other ways of assimilating loads."
"It is feature-rich. It supports most protocols, which is important because I am in charge of a team at the bank, and we do performance testing for all kinds of different applications. We have tons of them. We even do video streams."
"The TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"Keeping up with DevOps, thus the best feature of StormRunner is that we don't have to build and maintain infrastructure anymore."
"It's fast, easy to use, has a user-friendly UI, and you can split users."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"An area for improvement is analytics on why response times are slow from certain countries."
"It should have a feature to report with a 99.9 percentile success rate."
"We did have some challenges with the initial implementation."
"There is a steep learning curve for the product, too."
"We encounter hurdles while running the professional version for on-premise setup."
"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."
"It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need."
"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."
More IBM Engineering Test Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Engineering Test Management is ranked 15th in Load Testing Tools with 11 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Load Testing Tools with 39 reviews. IBM Engineering Test Management is rated 7.6, while OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM Engineering Test Management writes "Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud writes "Supports multiple protocols and helps to ensure that our applications are stable at any given point". IBM Engineering Test Management is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter and Apache JMeter. See our IBM Engineering Test Management vs. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud report.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.