We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Performance Tester and Visual Studio Test Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, IDERA, Microsoft and others in Test Management Tools."Technical support is very good. I'm very satisfied with the assistance we've received so far."
"It can support both web applications and mobile applications, and in certain cases, it can also support testing of desktop applications or software-based applications. You can write web applications, mobile applications, and software-based applications."
"The ability to quickly make your own components has been valuable."
"Visual Studio Test Professional is a very scalable solution."
"The debugging feature is valuable."
"Code testing is the most valuable feature of this solution for developing software."
"User-friendly ID and direct integration with GitHub are the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature has been to store all our packages in one place including SSIS packages, SQL tables, TFS and SSR."
"The most valuable features are the SSIS reports, the deployment models, and the ability to interact with other Microsoft tools."
"The solution is very stable; there's nothing in relation to stability to complain about."
"The solution is not easily scalable. If you want to extend the solution, you need to purchase a different kind of license. You also have to work with the IBM team to assist in scaling."
"There are some features that Micro Focus LoadRunner provides, but they are not available in IBM Rational Performance Tester. They should include such features. It can also have more reports similar to what HP provides. It might also need some improvement in terms of the tools and support for other technology areas. Certain technologies are not supported by every tool. They need to support all sorts of technologies and platforms on which web applications and mobile applications are built. They need complete support for all sorts of technologies."
"One of the problems with this solution is you need to be highly technically skilled to operate it, it is not for everyone."
"Sometimes, the solution hangs, so its performance could be improved."
"The performance could be faster."
"The database administration could be better; you should be able to choose new tools with the development environment in Visual Studio. It could be easier to use."
"The pricing of this solution should be lowered."
"The integration with Git needs improving because it is a bit disjointed and unpredictable."
"Its UI could be better."
"Visual Studio Test Professional could improve by having better integration with external databases."
More IBM Rational Performance Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
IBM Rational Performance Tester is ranked 25th in Test Management Tools while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 5th in Test Management Tools with 48 reviews. IBM Rational Performance Tester is rated 7.6, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Performance Tester writes "We can edit captured transactions and organize them by those for which we require performance metrics, but it lacks a set of manuals or guides that would take out some guess work". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". IBM Rational Performance Tester is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Tricentis NeoLoad and OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and TestRail.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management 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.