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."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."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"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."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"The most valuable feature is having load generators in countries where we don’t have access to them."
"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 TruClient feature is the most valuable for us. An application with testing can only be scripted using TruClient, so it's part web-based, but it also has its own protocol combined with HTTP and HTML. So many other tools do not recognize this specific proprietary protocol. Using TruClient, we can still create scripts that cover everything that we need to cover."
"The most valuable feature is that you can create an infrastructure on-demand and do performance testing with it."
"The product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"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's a fast product, so you don't have much trouble in terms of maintenance overhead. You don't want to just look into configuring load generators, look for upgrades, and end up having that take up a lot of your time. With this solution, you just log in and you start using it. This means that there is a huge benefit in terms of the overhead of maintaining the infrastructure and the maintenance effort."
"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."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"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."
"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."
"One area of improvement in the software's support is the replaying of captured data within the development environment. It would be beneficial if the replay feature could accurately mimic what the actual application is doing for better analysis and testing."
"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."
"Improvements to the reporting would be good."
"We did have some challenges with the initial implementation."
"It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need."
"We are trying to put it into a complete CI/CD pipeline, but there are still some challenges when you try to run it through different protocols. The challenges are around how you can containerize applications. There are some limitations to some protocols, such as desktop. And when it comes to database testing, there are some things that we can't do through CI/CD."
"The support team provides delayed responses."
"The product must provide agents to monitor servers."
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, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest, 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.
