Ptr KiProduct Owner at PerkinElmer, Inc.
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."
"I like the Kanban board. It is very useful in terms of seeing who is working on what and what the current status of work is."
"I like the build management features and the integration with Jenkins and many other tools."
"This solution enables us to link all items usefully, in the way we use Agile."
"The most valuable features are the dashboard and task-selection capability."
"The interface is easy to navigate."
"The most valuable feature is the backlog."
"Good branching and labelling features."
"The most valuable feature is simplicity."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like them to include integration for various projects, similar to what JIRA has, and they could create this feature on the dashboard."
"One of the areas that could be improved is to have an effective full lifecycle management."
"The test management interface is not very handy."
"The interface can be improved and made more user-friendly."
"I would like to see the reporting features expanded so that I can see details on the users connected to all of the projects."
"The program and portfolio planning facility can be improved."
"Integration from Visual Studio could be improved."
"They should have design patterns in TFS for the development team, and design patterns for the QA."
"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."
"The pricing is reasonable at this time."
"TFS is more competitively priced than some other solutions."
"We pay subscription fees on a yearly basis and the price is reasonable."
"I wouldn't say that this tool is cheap or expensive but in the middle."
"We are using the open-source version."
"The price of the solution is cheaper than other competitors and it is a per-user license."
IBM Rational Performance Tester is ranked 16th in Test Management Tools with 2 reviews while TFS is ranked 2nd in Test Management Tools with 16 reviews. IBM Rational Performance Tester is rated 8.0, while TFS is rated 7.8. 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 TFS writes "Good project management features improve discipline and productivity in our application development lifecycle". IBM Rational Performance Tester is most compared with Apache JMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Neotys NeoLoad, Selenium HQ and IBM Rational Test Workbench, whereas TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Rally Software, Micro Focus ALM Quality Center and Visual Studio Test Professional. See our IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. TFS 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.