We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager and OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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."The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"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 allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"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."
"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."
"There are various languages that they allow those programs to be written in, whether you want to use Java or something else."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"Very useful for finding out how the system responds to load, stress, and normal situations, as well as benchmarking with other industry competitors. It also improved our response time, memory delegation, and CPU delegation. In addition, we used LoadRunner to optimize our database and website."
"A very comprehensive tool that is good for performance testing."
"It has features for recording. The best feature with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is that there is very little bottleneck or overhead issues. With LoadRunner, you can spawn 2000 contributions for one machine."
"The solution helps my clients save time. It is easier to capture reports and improves product quality. The product helps to identify customer defects during performance tests and reduces workloads. The product has improved my client's user interaction. It has reduced peak load times."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"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."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"Lacks specific level monitoring."
"I recently just got to see LoadRunner Developer, but it is still not fully developed to use."
"Instead of having too many graphs and tabs, use the analysis section to get a more simplified defect analysis."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
"Micro Focus has two separate products for web and mobile applications, which means you have to invest in both."
"In terms of resource management, you need a lot of high capacity boxes if you need to generate a load of 1,000 or 2,000 users."
"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."
"The solution uses a lot of memory and then it dies. It's difficult to work with the solution sometimes when you run a scenario it dies. They need to make the solution lighter somehow."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 15th in Load Testing Tools with 11 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 76 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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 Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and IBM Rational Performance Tester. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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.