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."The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"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 load testing, reporting, and scripting features are all valuable features."
"Very useful for finding out how the system responds to load, stress, and normal situations, as well as benchmarking with other industry competitors. It also improved our response time, memory delegation, and CPU delegation. In addition, we used LoadRunner to optimize our database and website."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"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."
"My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs."
"The stability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is very high. It is the leading tool for stability."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support."
"We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market."
"Compared to some other vendors, there is a lack of community support."
"The solution is very costly. The cost is very high, especially considering a lot of other resources are available now and they are less expensive. For a small organization, it is very difficult to sustain the costs involved in having the solution or the related fees"
"The solution lacks some form of integration."
"Instead of having too many graphs and tabs, use the analysis section to get a more simplified defect analysis."
"The product is pretty heavy and should be more lightweight."
"The pricing model, selling model, and business model need to be adjusted. For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost."
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.