Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Apache JMeter vs IBM Rational Performance Tester comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Apache JMeter
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
94
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (1st), Load Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (1st)
IBM Rational Performance Te...
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (24th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Apache JMeter is designed for Performance Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 20.0%, down 25.6% compared to last year.
IBM Rational Performance Tester, on the other hand, focuses on Test Management Tools, holds 1.4% mindshare, up 1.1% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Shashidhara Allalappa - PeerSpot reviewer
Extensive Protocol Support and Precise Reporting Elevate Testing, Though GUI Usability Needs Improvement
The GUI of Apache JMeter is not that user-friendly because we have many proxies, and we have to record through the proxy. With the limited SSL we have, we cannot use it for UI, which is a drawback. However, Apache JMeter is really good for REST APIs. I don't think there are any other areas other than the GUI that I would want improved about Apache JMeter; it is generally good and supports multiple protocols.
KashifJamil - PeerSpot reviewer
Supports web and mobile applications, very scalable, very stable, and wonderful support
There are some features that Micro Focus LoadRunner provides, but they are not available in IBM Rational Performance Tester. They should include such features. It can also have more reports similar to what HP provides. It might also need some improvement in terms of the tools and support for other technology areas. Certain technologies are not supported by every tool. They need to support all sorts of technologies and platforms on which web applications and mobile applications are built. They need complete support for all sorts of technologies.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"A lot of things are valuable. It is free. It has a lot of features, such as report generation and integration with CI/CD, which makes it very competitive with the other paid solutions available in the market. It is a good solution."
"When there's a high number of TPS I can achieve more transactions per seconds given the hyper-limitations."
"The scripting ability is most valuable. It is easy to use. There is a UI, and you can go in there and figure those things out. After you've got a good set of tests, you basically have a scripted document that you can grab and execute in a pipeline. It is pretty quick to set up, and you can scale it and version control it."
"The solution helps by detecting bottlenecks."
"The solution has good transition controllers and distributed testing."
"JMeter lets us generate virtual users and T-load, per our requirements. It's easy to configure and adjusting the virtual users according to the DPS we want to achieve."
"Apache JMeter is quite flexible."
"Due to process automation, I don't have to prepare reports, making it the perfect solution."
"It can support both web applications and mobile applications, and in certain cases, it can also support testing of desktop applications or software-based applications. You can write web applications, mobile applications, and software-based applications."
"Technical support is very good. I'm very satisfied with the assistance we've received so far."
 

Cons

"Because so much is being done these days with authentication processes, a better system for either getting bearer tokens or some kind of token-based authentication prior to executing APIs would benefit the product. It is there, and you can do things. It is just not real clean at this point. There should be a better authentication process for JMeter or some automation or better guidelines for gaining and utilizing tokens on the fly."
"Self-healing and page rendering for the end-users are not available in Apache JMeter."
"The initial setup is complex and needs to be upgraded."
"Considering the kinds of tests we are performing here, where we launch several tests at the same time as a batch request, JMeter is not the best tool for the job. Those kinds of things could be done easily with other tools, like T6."
"The plug-ins make the reports heavy and they have to be run in non-GUI mode."
"It will be much easier, and beneficial for the individual to run it on their own machines rather than having a high-end infrastructure, more CPUs, or more memory that has been consumed by Apache JMeter."
"While using Apache JMeter, we are unable to view the graph while the test is running because it consumes resources, which is a drawback. With BlazeMeter, you can view the results in real-time."
"For UI automation, it is limited and therefore rates a one."
"There are some features that Micro Focus LoadRunner provides, but they are not available in IBM Rational Performance Tester. They should include such features. It can also have more reports similar to what HP provides. It might also need some improvement in terms of the tools and support for other technology areas. Certain technologies are not supported by every tool. They need to support all sorts of technologies and platforms on which web applications and mobile applications are built. They need complete support for all sorts of technologies."
"The solution is not easily scalable. If you want to extend the solution, you need to purchase a different kind of license. You also have to work with the IBM team to assist in scaling."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This is an open-source product."
"It is free."
"The product has reasonable pricing."
"There are operational costs related to using Amazon Cloud, but the tool itself."
"In terms of open-source adoption, it is completely free."
"This is an open-source solution, so there are no licensing costs involved."
"Apache JMeter is a free tool."
"Everything is included, and there are no additional costs."
"It is much cheaper than Micro Focus LoadRunner. We need perpetual licenses. Support is included in the first sale. After that, you need to renew support every year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
862,452 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
29%
Computer Software Company
16%
Government
14%
Real Estate/Law Firm
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

How does Postman compare with Apache JMeter?
Postman lets you easily define variables, which then get updated automatically. This is a huge time-saver and makes processes very efficient. We can also export the test cases we create and share t...
How does BlazeMeter compare with Apache JMeter?
Blazemeter is a continuous testing platform that provides scriptless test automation. It unifies functional and performance testing, enabling users to monitor and test public and private APIs. We ...
What do you like most about Apache JMeter?
I appreciate JMeter's simplicity and power for performance testing.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

JMeter
Rational Performance Tester
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AOL, Orbitz, Innopath Software, PrepMe, Sapient, Corporate Express Australia, CSIRO, Ephibian, Talis, DATACOM, ALALOOP, eFusion, Panter, Sourcepole, University of Western Cape
andagon, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Perforce, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: July 2025.
862,452 professionals have used our research since 2012.