We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager and OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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."The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"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."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"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 ability to configure browser settings for different operating systems and on different versions without the need to install every single version on each machine and to manage them."
"The most valuable feature is that you can create an infrastructure on-demand and do performance testing with it."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"Both the professional and cloud versions of Micro Focus LoadRunner use the same scripting or programming to execute performance modeling operations. This feature allows users to use various programming languages such as Java, C, or C++, which can run within either of the two environments. This flexibility in the programming language is a strong point of the software."
"One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols."
"The beauty of LoadRunner Cloud is that we can use the load generator that is hosted by us on-premises, and we also have the option to use their hosted load generator. If it is a public-hosted application, we can also use their public-hosted load generator, but in our case, all our applications are hosted in our data center, so we are using the on-premise load generator. We have the option to deploy those load generators as we want."
"The solution can scale."
"The TruClient feature is the most valuable for us. An application with testing can only be scripted using TruClient, so it's part web-based, but it also has its own protocol combined with HTTP and HTML. So many other tools do not recognize this specific proprietary protocol. Using TruClient, we can still create scripts that cover everything that we need to cover."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"We are trying to put it into a complete CI/CD pipeline, but there are still some challenges when you try to run it through different protocols. The challenges are around how you can containerize applications. There are some limitations to some protocols, such as desktop. And when it comes to database testing, there are some things that we can't do through CI/CD."
"One area for improvement in LoadRunner Cloud, especially for agile models, is its limited support for functional testing alongside its robust non-functional testing capabilities."
"An area for improvement is analytics on why response times are slow from certain countries."
"I'd like to see more ability to dive more deeply into the configuration."
"I would like for there to be better integration with other tools so that when you do load testing you can also do a security check."
"It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need."
"In terms of new features, they can natively integrate with Chaos engineering tools such as Chaos Monkey and AWS FIS. With LoadRunner, we can generate load, and if Chaos tools are also supported natively, it will help to get everything together."
"CI/CD integration could be a little bit better. When there's a test and if you see that there are high response times in the test itself, it would be great to be able to send an alert. It would give a heads-up to the architect community or ops community."
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 15th in Load Testing Tools with 11 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Load Testing Tools with 39 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2. 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 Cloud writes "Enterprise modeling, server maintenance, and competitive pricing". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter and Apache JMeter. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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.