Compare IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. Tricentis qTest

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: May 2021.
502,275 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.""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."

More IBM Rational Performance Tester Pros »

"The solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless.""The test automation tracking is valuable because our automated testing systems are distributed and they did not necessarily have a single point where they would come together and be reported. Having all of them report back to qTest, and having one central place where all of my test executions are tracked and reported on, is incredibly valuable because it saves time.""qTest helps us compile issues and have one place to look for them. We're not chasing down emails and other sources. So in the grand scheme of things, it does help to resolve issues faster because everyone is working off of the same information in one location.""Being able to log into Defects, go right into JIRA, add that defect to the user story, right there at that point, means we connect all of that. That is functionality we haven't had in the past. As a communication hub, it works really well. It's pretty much a closed loop; it's all contained right there. There's no delay. You're getting from the defect to the system to JIRA to the developer.""The integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good.""The main thing that really stuck out when we started using this tool, is the linkability of qTest to JIRA, and the traceability of tying JIRA requirement and defects directly with qTest. So when you're executing test cases, if you go to fail it, it automatically links and opens up a JIRA window. You're able to actually write up a ticket and it automatically ties it to the test case itself.""The JIRA integration is really important to us because it allows our business analysts to see test results inside the JIRA ticket and that we have met the definition of "done," and have made sure we tested to the requirements of the story.""The most important feature which I like in qTest manager is the user-friendliness, especially the tabs. Since I'm the admin, I use the configuration field settings and allocate the use cases to the different QA people. It is not difficult, as a QA person, for me to understand what is happening behind the scenes."

More Tricentis qTest 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.""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."

More IBM Rational Performance Tester Cons »

"qTest offers a baseline feature where you can only base sort-order for a specific story or requirement on two fields. However, our company has so many criteria and has so many verticals that this baseline feature is not sufficient. We would want another field to be available in the sort order.""I wouldn't say a lot of good things about Insights, but that's primarily because, with so many test cases, it is incredibly slow for us. We generally don't use it because of that.""I really can't stand the Defects module. It's not easy to use. ALM's... Defects Module is really robust. You can actually walk through each defect by just clicking an arrow... But with the qTest Defects module you can't do that. You have to run a query. You're pretty much just querying a database. It's not really a module, or at least a robust module. Everything is very manual.""I would really love to find a way to get the results, into qTest Manager, of Jenkins' executing my Selenium scripts, so that when I look at everything I can look at the whole rather than the parts. Right now, I can only see what happens manually. Automation-wise, we track it in bulk, as opposed to the discrete test cases that are performed. So that connection point would be really interesting for me.""We feel the integration between JIRA and qTest could be done even better. It's not as user-friendly as qTest's other features. The JIRA integration with qTest needs to mature a lot... We need smarter execution with JIRA in the case of failures, so that the way we pull out the issues again for the next round is easy... Locating JIRA defects corresponding to a trait from the test results is something of a challenge.""The Insights reporting engine has a good test-metrics tracking dashboard. The overall intent is good... But the execution is a little bit limited... the results are not consistent. The basic premise and functionality work fine... It is a little clunky with some of the advanced metrics. Some of the colorings are a little unique.""The installation of the software could be streamlined. We pay for the on-premise support and they help us a lot, but the installation is something which is very command-line oriented.""As an admin, I'm unable to delete users. I'm only able to make a user inactive. This is a scenario about which I've already made a suggestion to qTest. When people leave the company, I should be able to delete them from qTest. I shouldn't have to have so many users."

More Tricentis qTest Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"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."

More IBM Rational Performance Tester Pricing and Cost Advice »

"The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount.""Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year.""It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market.""We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license.""We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that.""We signed for a year and I believe we paid $24,000 for Flood, Manager, and the qTest Insights. We paid an extra for $4,000 for the migration support.""For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."

More Tricentis qTest Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
502,275 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: 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… more »
Top Answer: 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… more »
Top Answer: I strongly recommend this solution to others. They can use IBM Rational Performance Tester without any problems for their web applications, mobile application, or software-based applications. I would… more »
Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Ranking
16th
Views
1,480
Comparisons
996
Reviews
1
Average Words per Review
434
Rating
8.0
3rd
Views
6,921
Comparisons
3,434
Reviews
10
Average Words per Review
2,074
Rating
8.4
Popular Comparisons
Also Known As
Rational Performance Tester
qTest
Learn More
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.

Tricentis is the global leader in enterprise continuous testing, widely credited for reinventing software testing for DevOps, cloud, and enterprise applications. The Tricentis AI-based, continuous testing platform provides a new and fundamentally different way to perform software testing. An approach that’s totally automated, fully codeless, and intelligently driven by AI. It addresses both agile development and complex enterprise apps, enabling enterprises to accelerate their digital transformation by dramatically increasing software release speed, reducing costs, and improving software quality. 

Offer
Learn more about IBM Rational Performance Tester
Learn more about Tricentis qTest
Sample Customers
andagon, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company44%
Comms Service Provider16%
Government9%
Educational Organization5%
REVIEWERS
Computer Software Company29%
Energy/Utilities Company14%
Healthcare Company14%
Financial Services Firm14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company33%
Comms Service Provider13%
Financial Services Firm8%
Insurance Company6%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business24%
Midsize Enterprise35%
Large Enterprise41%
REVIEWERS
Small Business8%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise67%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business9%
Midsize Enterprise4%
Large Enterprise87%
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: May 2021.
502,275 professionals have used our research since 2012.

IBM Rational Performance Tester is ranked 16th in Test Management Tools with 2 reviews while Tricentis qTest is ranked 3rd in Test Management Tools with 10 reviews. IBM Rational Performance Tester is rated 8.0, while Tricentis qTest is rated 8.4. 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 Tricentis qTest writes "Provides a central point of reference for tracking bugs and failures, who owns the issue and its status". IBM Rational Performance Tester is most compared with Apache JMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Neotys NeoLoad, IBM Rational Test Workbench and Selenium HQ, whereas Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, Cognizant ADPART, Zephyr Enterprise and TFS. See our IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. Tricentis qTest 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.