Compare IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. Silk Test

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Use IBM Rational Performance Tester? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus, Microsoft, Tricentis and others in Test Management Tools. Updated: January 2021.
457,459 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
"Technical support is very good. I'm very satisfied with the assistance we've received so far."

More IBM Rational Performance Tester Pros »

"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature.""The feature I like most is the ease of reporting.""The statistics that are available are very good.""The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to.""The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities.""Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."

More Silk Test Pros »

Cons
"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."

More IBM Rational Performance Tester Cons »

"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration.""The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve.""Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are.""The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies.""The support for automation with iOS applications can be better.""We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."

More Silk Test Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
"Our licensing fees are on a yearly basis, and while I think that the price is quite reasonable I am not allowed to share those details.""We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."

More Silk Test Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
457,459 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Top Answer: The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to.
Top Answer: The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies. When tests are recorded on to Silk Central, there is a bit of a lack of clarity in terms of what needs to be fed into Silk Central and… more »
Top Answer: The solution is generally a framework for test functional automation. We use it for automation of web applications for the most part.
Ranking
15th
Views
1,539
Comparisons
1,044
Reviews
1
Average Words per Review
334
Rating
8.0
16th
Views
5,341
Comparisons
3,464
Reviews
5
Average Words per Review
625
Rating
7.0
Popular Comparisons
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Also Known As
Rational Performance TesterSegue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
Learn
IBM
Micro Focus
Overview
IBM Rational Performance Tester is a performance testing solution that validates the scalability of web and server applications. Rational Performance Tester identifies the presence and cause of system performance bottlenecks and reduces load testing complexity.SilkTest is robust and portable test automation for web, native, and enterprise software applications. Silk Test's portability enables users to test applications more effectively with lower complexity and cost in comparison to other functional testing tools on the market. Silk Test's role based testing enables business stakeholders, QA engineers, and developers to contribute to the whole automation testing process, which drives collaboration and increases the effectiveness of software testing.
Offer
Learn more about IBM Rational Performance Tester
Learn more about Silk Test
Sample Customers
andagon, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of OregonKrung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company55%
Comms Service Provider15%
Government9%
Financial Services Firm5%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company38%
Comms Service Provider15%
Financial Services Firm11%
Insurance Company5%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business19%
Midsize Enterprise38%
Large Enterprise44%
REVIEWERS
Small Business21%
Midsize Enterprise21%
Large Enterprise57%
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus, Microsoft, Tricentis and others in Test Management Tools. Updated: January 2021.
457,459 professionals have used our research since 2012.

IBM Rational Performance Tester is ranked 15th in Test Management Tools with 1 review while Silk Test is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 6 reviews. IBM Rational Performance Tester is rated 8.0, while Silk Test is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Performance Tester writes "A solution that supports multiple integrations and offers great technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Silk Test writes "An easy to use interface with a recording feature that our business users are happy with". IBM Rational Performance Tester is most compared with Apache JMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Neotys NeoLoad, IBM Rational Test Workbench and Selenium HQ, whereas Silk Test is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Selenium HQ and Apache JMeter.

See our list of .

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.