We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager and Tricentis NeoLoad 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."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance 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."
"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."
"My company has a good experience with Tricentis NeoLoad, and what I like best about it is that it lets you generate loads from different geographies. The load generation agents getting placed on different geographies is a very good feature of the solution. I also like that you can scale up Tricentis NeoLoad very quickly. The general feedback on performance testing with Tricentis NeoLoad for all product lines within my company is good."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"NeoLoad is best tool for testing in production without making many changes to the script or solution."
"The solution's setup was straightforward."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"The licensing cost is very less for NeoLoad. It is user-friendly and easy to understand because they have created so many useful functionalities. When I started working with this tool, we just had to do the initial assessment about whether this tool will be able to support our daily work or not. I could easily understand it. I didn't have to search Google or watch YouTube videos. In just 15 to 20 minutes, I was able to understand the tool."
"NeoLoad is actually really good, mainly because they have a world-class support service."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"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."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"There is room for improvement with the support and community documentation as it can be difficult to find answers to questions quickly."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"The product must improve the features that allow integration with CI/CD pipelines."
"It would be good to make some updates on the reporting side."
"Tricentis NeoLoad crashes if an application contains more than 1,000 scripts."
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 15th in Load Testing Tools with 11 reviews while Tricentis NeoLoad is ranked 3rd in Load Testing Tools with 58 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while Tricentis NeoLoad 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 Tricentis NeoLoad writes "Supports SAP and non-SAP applications and helps identify performance issues before production deployment". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest, whereas Tricentis NeoLoad is most compared with Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Tricentis Tosca and BlazeMeter. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. Tricentis NeoLoad 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.
