We performed a comparison between IBM Engineering Test Management 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."Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"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's very reliable as a solution."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's best feature is the detailed reporting structure."
"It offers easy integration with third-party tools like Dynatrace, Splunk, etc."
"The most beneficial features of the solution are flexibility and versatility in their performance."
"With Performance Center, the version upgrade is easy. You just have to roll out the new patch or the new version."
"I think the number one feature everybody likes is the capability to easily generate virtual users as well as the reporting."
"Probably its prime advantage, it provides a centralized location for testing."
"The tool is very easy to set up and get running."
"We can measure metrics like hits per second and detect deviations or issues through graphs. We can filter out response times based on timings and identify spikes in the database or AWS reports."
"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 it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's reporting should be quicker, easier, and more flexible."
"I have seen some users report some issues, but I have personally not had any issues."
"Canned reports are always a challenge and a question with customers because customers want to see sexy reports."
"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."
"It would be good if we could look forward at the future technology needs we have. I would like to see Micro Focus provide more customer awareness around how LoadRunner can fulfill requirements with Big Data use cases, for example, where you do performance testing at the scale of data lakes... when it comes to technologies our company has yet to adopt, I would like to see an indication from Micro Focus of how one does performance testing and what kinds of challenges can we foresee. Those kinds of studies would really help us."
"Sometimes, the code is not generated when we record the scripts in the backend."
"We are expecting more flexible to use Jenkins in continuous integration going forward."
"The solution is expensive."
More IBM Engineering Test Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Engineering Test Management 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 Engineering Test Management is rated 7.6, while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4. 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 Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". IBM Engineering Test Management is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, 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 Engineering Test Management 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.
