We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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."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."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"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."
"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."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"With LoadRunner Enterprise, doing various types of performance testing, load testing, and automation testing has been very helpful for some of the teams."
"The solution offers helpful guidelines and has good documentation."
"The product is good, and the concept is good as well."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is recording and replaying, and the fact that there are multiple options available to do this."
"We have a centralized delivery team and we are able to meet enterprise requirements, which include different types of protocols that are involved, including scripting. The technology supports that and enables us to have a wider range of testing. Enterprise-level testing is something that we are satisfied with."
"The host performance testing of any application using a host/controller is the most valuable feature."
"What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"It is pretty easy to do test execution and results analysis. When it comes to scenario settings, LoadRunner Enterprise has an extra edge over other testing tools in the industry. The scenario setup is easy, and in terms of execution, we have a clear idea of what is happening"
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"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."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"I think better or more integration with some of the monitoring tools that we're considering."
"For such an experienced team as mine, who have been with the product for over ten years, sometimes working with technical support is not that easy."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise doesn't support some mainframe protocols. We had to build scripts to access the interface."
"The installation has not been straightforward, and we have had so many problems. We have had to re-install, try to install on a different machine, etc. We have not been able to launch the LRE server itself yet."
"A room for improvement in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is that it should take multiple exhibitions for a particular scenario and have automatic trending for that. This will be a very useful feature that lets users look into how many exhibitions happened for the scenario and their performance, and you should be able to see the data within the Performance Center dashboard. For example, there's one scenario I'm focusing on multiple times in a month, and if I check five times, there's no way for me to see the trend and find out how it went with those five exhibitions. It would be great if the Performance Center has a view of all five exhibitions, particularly transaction by transaction, and how they happened. If Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise shows you the time trends, information about one exhibition to another, and how each performed, it'll be an immense feature, and that should be visible to every user. Reporting should be simpler in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. If I did a scenario with one exhibition now, and I did that scenario again, then I should be able to schedule that scenario for the exhibition, and if that scenario is executed multiple times, there should be the option to turn it into a single view that shows you all the transactions, how the performance was, what the trend graph is for a particular time, etc."
"I'd rate the scalability a six out of ten. The main reason is that it's a very expensive application. Other companies might not be able to afford it. For example, if we need to test an application with 10,000 concurrent users, the license can cost a lot of money. That's where OpenText tools shoot themselves in the foot compared to other tools. Because of the price, many companies, like one I used to work for, decided not to renew their licenses and switched to open-source testing tools."
"I know there are integrations with continuous testing. It's got tie-ins to some of the newer tools to allow continuous testing. I'd love to see us not have to customize it, but for it to be out of the box."
"The debugging feature needs to include graphs."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 15th in Load Testing Tools with 11 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Load Testing Tools with 81 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Quality Manager writes "Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Apache JMeter. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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.