We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"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."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"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."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting, correlations, and parameterization. Debugging is also easy."
"The most valuable part of the product is the way you can scale the basic testing easily."
"Provides the performance of load test applications and reliably on good reporting."
"For me, LoadRunner stands out, especially with its reporting capabilities, the graphs that can be generated, and the unique feature of measuring our application's response alongside our infrastructure metrics, such as CPU, memory, or disk usage, all presented in graph form. This is something other applications struggle to match."
"This is a product that has a lot of capabilities and is the most mature tool of its kind in the market."
"I think the number one feature everybody likes is the capability to easily generate virtual users as well as the reporting."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise supports a lot of technologies. The existing performance testing that this tool is capable of is good. The protocols that are available are widely varied when compared to other performance testing tools."
"I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"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."
"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."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"I believe the data that demonstrates the automated correlations should be corrected."
"It is tough to maintain from the infrastructure side."
"The installation has not been straightforward, and we have had so many problems. We have had to re-install, try to install on a different machine, etc. We have not been able to launch the LRE server itself yet."
"The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved."
"The reporting has room for improvement."
"After they get over the acquisition, the first improvement is going to be tailoring it for their existing stack of other products. How would LoadRunner work for Documentum? How would it work for Business Network? How would it work for other apps? They can have a pre-package or a guide because they are all in the same family as opposed to being outside."
"Offering a direct integration feature would ensure a completely smooth experience."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise needs to add more features for Citrix performance-based applications testing. This was one of the challenges we observed. Additionally, we experienced some APIs challenges."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 15th in Load Testing Tools with 11 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Load Testing Tools with 81 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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 Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Apache JMeter. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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.