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 (25th)
 

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 16.4%, down 25.7% compared to last year.
IBM Rational Performance Tester, on the other hand, focuses on Test Management Tools, holds 1.5% mindshare, up 0.9% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Apache JMeter16.4%
Tricentis NeoLoad13.8%
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)13.7%
Other56.1%
Performance Testing Tools
Test Management Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
IBM Rational Performance Tester1.5%
Tricentis qTest14.6%
OpenText Application Quality Management12.7%
Other71.2%
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

"To me, what's most valuable in Apache JMeter is that it's a lightweight tool for application testing. It's the best load-testing tool for my company because Apache JMeter simulates your application during testing. Apache JMeter also creates threads with good server utilization. Apache JMeter allows you to focus on analyzing the situation, looking into measurements, response time, and client-server responses, which I find valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Apache JMeter is its popularity. It is the best open-source tool with all the features needed."
"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 is free. You don't need to worry about licensing costs."
"Scripting with the solution is good."
"JMeter is a free tool with a large user population, which comes in handy because we have a vast knowledge base to tap into when needed. It's also easier to hire consultants who know JMeter."
"JMeter is user-friendly, and that's a notable advantage of JVTech. It's straightforward and easy to use, unlike some other load testing tools, making it very easy to understand."
"The reports and analysis tools are very good. They are the solution's most valuable features."
"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

"In future releases, it would be helpful if there was an integration with ALM Octane."
"They can improve it a little bit in terms of distribution load testing. We struggled with it during the distribution. In terms of reporting, runtime monitoring is not currently included, and it should be included. They can also improve it on the reporting side in terms of the comparison of the reports. They can also focus more on integration with CI/CD. Currently, people are using their own customized tools. It would be nice if Apache can provide some standard tools and procedures for integration with CI/CD tools like DPR. There are some tools, but it would be nice if official standard tools and procedures are available."
"Both scalability and stability could be improved in Apache JMeter."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner we can go from the UI and we can configure it. There is no such feature in Apache JMeter. There should be UI-based recording history or logs."
"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."
"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."
"Apache JMeter could use improvement in reporting. Currently, it isn't easy to generate reports in PDF format. While receiving reports in PDF format is possible, it requires a lot of customization. Additionally, when comparing the load test to others solutions it could improve."
"I need to consider it further because as features increase, it might become more complicated, and my goal has always been simplicity. Currently, I have to focus on other tasks, and I'm handling multiple responsibilities, so I can't juggle everything at once. However, if you ask me, I believe EJB covers most functionalities that are crucial. One improvement I'd suggest is adding a graphical aspect to the Gateway, making it a bit more colorful. Unlike JMeter, which lacks color, having a bit of color in the graphical aspects would be beneficial. Overall, for the essential features, EJB should work fine."
"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 solution, and there are no fees."
"The solution is open-source."
"When comparing the price with Load Runner, and if the cost is an issue then JMeter is a better choice"
"We didn't pay licensing fees for Apache JMeter because it's an open-source tool. We only paid for the machines where we installed Apache JMeter modules."
"Free"
"Apache JMeter is a free tool."
"Apache JMeter is a free open source solution and it is why we are using it."
"I switched to Apache because it is free. Other tools are much too expensive and can cost up to $50,000 a year if you are looking at commercial options."
"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.
867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
28%
Government
15%
Computer Software Company
15%
Retailer
3%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business25
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise56
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise8
 

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: September 2025.
867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.