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."
"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."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to configure browser settings for different operating systems and on different versions without the need to install every single version on each machine and to manage them."
"The TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI."
"It's fast, easy to use, has a user-friendly UI, and you can split users."
"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."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"The most valuable feature is that you can create an infrastructure on-demand and do performance testing with it."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the Vuser license; it allows us to reduce the cost as per requirement."
"This solution is SaaS based so we can utilize cloud technology, which is less time consuming and saves a lot of of money."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"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."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Sometimes, you are utilizing one of the low generators, then all of a sudden if you discontinue from one project, it actually deletes the entire low generator."
"Its scripting features need improvement."
"It should have a feature to report with a 99.9 percentile success rate."
"There is a steep learning curve for the product, too."
"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."
"An area for improvement is analytics on why response times are slow from certain countries."
"We encounter hurdles while running the professional version for on-premise setup."
"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."
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.
