Anonymous UserSr. Project Manager at University of Utah Hospitals & Clinics
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"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 reuse test cases already used across projects is the most valuable feature of this solution. We don't need to create new ones."
"The user-friendly features are the most valuable. For example, migration of requirements and migration of test cases and the creation of traceability. You have various reports that you need. The plug-ins that are available to connect with the other tools."
"The reporting functionality helps vendors and technical resources identify bugs and issues that need to be addressed. The simple dashboard-style home page makes training end-user testers simple and straightforward. The actual testing UI is VERY straightforward and very intuitive for the end-users that test the system since very often we pull from business and operational users to help test new systems."
"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."
"It should develop integration with JIRA. We have some complexities which caused us not to decide to integrate it with our JIRA, like synchronous data."
"Migrating is not very easy. It depends on the organization, how efficient and effective the decision-making process is. The plug-ins should be easier and more integrated rather than the user trying to integrate the tools which are more popular, like Jira et al."
"The UI for managing test cases, test sets, test runs could be a little more integrated, currently, these feel disjointed at times and confusing. Also, the test steps page needs to display the test steps closer to the top of the UI so as to not have to scroll down to find."
"It is much cheaper than Micro Focus LoadRunner. We need perpetual licenses. Support is included in the first sale. After that, you need to renew support every year."
IBM Rational Performance Tester is ranked 16th in Test Management Tools with 2 reviews while Inflectra SpiraTest is ranked 9th in Test Management Tools with 3 reviews. IBM Rational Performance Tester is rated 8.0, while Inflectra SpiraTest is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Performance Tester writes "Supports web and mobile applications, very scalable, very stable, and wonderful support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Inflectra SpiraTest writes "User friendly with ease of testing requirements management, migration from other tools and als othe integration with other testing tools". IBM Rational Performance Tester is most compared with Apache JMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Neotys NeoLoad, IBM Rational Test Workbench and Selenium HQ, whereas Inflectra SpiraTest is most compared with Jira, Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, TestRail by Gurock, Micro Focus ALM Octane and Microsoft Azure DevOps. See our IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. Inflectra SpiraTest report.
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.