We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager and OpenText LoadRunner Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Load Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Integration with the other professional tools is a very strong advantage, so that we can have a traceability between the requirements and defects in Rational Team Concert. That's the most important aspect."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"The front loader and the reporting features are the most valuable aspects of OpenText LoadRunner Professional."
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"Paramterization and correlation are important features."
"It has features for recording. The best feature with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is that there is very little bottleneck or overhead issues. With LoadRunner, you can spawn 2000 contributions for one machine."
"The initial setup and installation of the software were very easy and straightforward."
"My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs."
"Enables us to test most of the products and projects that we have across all the different technologies, without having to look at other tools."
"I like LoadRunner's ability to use multiple protocols. That's one of the greatest features along with the ability to test service calls between the app and server."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"The solution uses a lot of memory and then it dies. It's difficult to work with the solution sometimes when you run a scenario it dies. They need to make the solution lighter somehow."
"The price of this solution should be cheaper."
"The monitoring technology in LoadRunner could be improved. It depends on another tool called SiteScope, but they only took a part of the features of SiteScope. They need to improve on that."
"I also use the TrueClient feature for browser-based testing. I found the TrueClient feature to be a bit difficult to use and not very user-friendly for automating scripts."
"The tool needs to work on capture script feature."
"LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved."
"Compared to some other vendors, there is a lack of community support."
"Instead of having too many graphs and tabs, use the analysis section to get a more simplified defect analysis."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 15th in Load Testing Tools with 11 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 76 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Quality Manager writes "Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and IBM Rational Performance Tester. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional report.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load Testing 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.