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."
"We are satisfied with technical support. Communicating with them is very simple. We also have a lot of online resources to check and to study and to train our team with. The documentation is very clear and readily available."
"Code testing is the most valuable feature of this solution for developing software."
"The setup is easy and straightforward."
"The solution is very stable; there's nothing in relation to stability to complain about."
"The most valuable features are the SSIS reports, the deployment models, and the ability to interact with other Microsoft tools."
"The most valuable feature is the in-built support for C# and .NET projects."
"Performance-wise, it is a great tool."
"The most valuable features are tools like IntelliSense and ReSharper."
"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."
"The service right now is far too expensive. You need to pay per user."
"Enhancing the support for web application testing and load performance would be an improvement."
"The data flow can be improved."
"The database administration could be better; you should be able to choose new tools with the development environment in Visual Studio. It could be easier to use."
"The documents on the Microsoft website are not very useful, and they ought to make it easier to find answers."
"We would like to be able to easily integrate this solution with our continuous integration tools, such as Jenkins."
"The pricing of this solution should be lowered."
"The integration with Git needs improving because it is a bit disjointed and unpredictable."
"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."
"For the cloud services option, you buy a subscription per account or per user. This costs around $52 a month per person."
"I think that the pricing is quite good."
"The pricing is expensive."
IBM Rational Performance Tester is ranked 16th in Test Management Tools with 2 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 4th in Test Management Tools with 13 reviews. IBM Rational Performance Tester is rated 8.0, while Visual Studio Test Professional 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 Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Good integration between the management data and the test cases". IBM Rational Performance Tester is most compared with Apache JMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Neotys NeoLoad and Selenium HQ, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, HCL AppScan and Tricentis Tosca. See our IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. Visual Studio Test Professional 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.