We performed a comparison between IBM Engineering Test Management 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."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."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance 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."
"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."
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"I like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to create performance test cases quickly and then execute them. It provides a lot of powerful features to do that very efficiently and effectively."
"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."
"The most important feature for us is that it supports a lot of protocols because we support all of them, including HTTP, FTP, mainframe, and others."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"Graph monitoring is a valuable feature."
"I like LoadRunner's ability to use multiple protocols. That's one of the greatest features along with the ability to test service calls between the app and server."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"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."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"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."
"LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high-quality technical support, I rate the support a one."
"We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly."
"I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support."
"I also use the TrueClient feature for browser-based testing. I found the TrueClient feature to be a bit difficult to use and not very user-friendly for automating scripts."
"We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market."
"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."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
More IBM Engineering Test Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Engineering Test Management is ranked 15th in Load Testing Tools with 11 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 3rd in Load Testing Tools with 77 reviews. IBM Engineering Test Management is rated 7.6, while OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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 Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". IBM Engineering Test Management is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, 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 Engineering Test Management 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.
