Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing vs IBM Engineering Test Management comparison

Dotcom-Monitor and IBM are both solutions in the Load Testing Tools category. Dotcom-Monitor is ranked #20, while IBM is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.0. Dotcom-Monitor holds a 0.4% mindshare in LTT, compared to IBM’s 0.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Dotcom-Monitor users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 81% of IBM users who would recommend it.

Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Str...

Read 3 Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing reviews

117 Views
59 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

IBM Engineering Test Manage...

Read 11 IBM Engineering Test Management reviews

151 Views
65 Comparison Views

81% willing to recommend

Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Str...

IBM Engineering Test Manage...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 6, 2025

IBM Engineering Test Management and Dotcom-Monitor LoadView compete in the software testing category. IBM Engineering Test Management appears to have the upper hand in project management and team collaboration, while Dotcom-Monitor LoadView is favored for its stress testing capabilities.

Features: IBM Engineering Test Management enhances project management with test planning, coverage tracking, and workflow efficiency. Dotcom-Monitor LoadView is strong in performance testing, scalability assessment, and real-time monitoring.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM Engineering Test Management provides a complex deployment process but benefits from a strong support network, with both on-premise and cloud options. Dotcom-Monitor LoadView offers an easy cloud-based deployment and responsive customer service.

Pricing and ROI: IBM Engineering Test Management involves higher initial costs but offers long-term ROI through integration and productivity. Dotcom-Monitor LoadView has a lower initial investment, focusing on performance testing ROI with an appealing price-quality ratio.

To learn more, read our detailed Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing vs. IBM Engineering Test Management Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing vs. IBM Engineering Test Management

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 peers since 2012

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

Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Str...

Ranking in Load Testing Tools

20th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

IBM Engineering Test Manage...

Ranking in Load Testing Tools

10th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Management Tools (8th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing is 0.4%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Engineering Test Management is 0.5%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Load Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

reviewer1631949

Solutions Architect ICT at a non-tech company with 10,001+ employees

User-friendly, cheap, and quick to set up

It's actually quite easy to set it up. You can change your upgrade plan at any time. The pricing is reasonable. The support was also very good. They are great at helping you set it up. Overall, it's user-friendly. I like that you can also use different servers, which I used in Europe or in different contexts. The reporting is okay. I can get notifications via email, which is nice. Everything is immediate and in real-time.

Read full review

Hellen Zhang

Lead Systems Tester at Government of Ontario, Canada

Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team

IBM Rational has the RFT, which is rational functional testing. We do test automation with rational functional testing. So after we do that, we can put in all the code, then I can build it, then put all the test cases, and put all the build code for the shared location. And then rational that shared location means that RQM has access to the shared location. So, when we execute, if a test case is automated, we can run it from RQM. We need to have the environment ready for it to execute. Once we have that, then we can select the task case. So, by clicking on one button, the other environment is automatically plugged in. Then test results will be automatically transferred back to our RQM. So, in RQM, we can view it, and it is integrated. So we can run the test and the automation from RQM, and the test results will come back. Azure DevOps first test case is there, but then we tried to use Selenium to do half automation. Still, we realized that it wouldn't have the integration. We could do something in the pipeline, but it fires the Selenium test automation code. But then the test results won't be brought back or added to AzureDesk DevOps. That's something that I do hope that there can be another other system that can have this kind of integration. RQM can be improved because it's not related to our server and could be faster. We need to find out how much database storage is needed and keep increasing it. We heard that the latest version of RQM can clean up some old ones and give the same test result. But that one feature we are yet to use. It's a setting that we can set up, and then it goes automatically or gives me the choice to do it manually.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The pricing is reasonable."

"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional 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."

"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."

"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."

"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."

"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."

More IBM Engineering Test Management pros

Cons

"A lot of time you start the stress testing, and you sign the log in again, and I want to get rid of that. It's just not clear to me how to do it yet."

"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."

"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."

"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."

"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."

"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."

More IBM Engineering Test Management cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"You can buy plans that range from free to $500 a month."

"Each license includes 12 months of customer support. A free 90-day trial of the software is also available."

"The licenses of these tools (the whole CLM package) is very costly as compared to other vendors' tools."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Healthcare Company

18%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about IBM Rational Quality Manager?

The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing.

See all answers

What needs improvement with IBM Rational Quality Manager?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for IBM Rational Quality Manager?

We create test cases, and then we need to plan a new task plan feature from the existing task case file and execute the test results, which will be saved in RQM. So that is how we are using the too...

See all answers

Comparisons

Apache JMeter vs Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing

Compared 100% of the time

More Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing Competitors

TestRail vs IBM Engineering Test Management

Compared 52% of the time

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs IBM Engineering Test Management

Compared 48% of the time

More IBM Engineering Test Management Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Load Testing Tools

March 2025

Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing report

Download Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

Test Management Tools

March 2025

Download IBM Engineering Test Management product report

Also Known As

LoadView Stress Testing

IBM Rational Quality Manager, Rational Quality Manager

Overview

LoadView provides scalable external load testing using real browsers. Spin up virtual machines in the Amazon, Google or Rackspace clouds without having to manage cloud accounts. Record scripts and run stress tests on demand. Learn more at https://www.loadview-testing.com

Dotcom-Monitor

IBM Engineering Test Management (ETM), formerly known as IBM Rational® Quality Manager (RQM), is a business-driven software quality environment designed for collaborative and customizable test planning, workflow control, tracking, and metrics reporting. When integrated with IBM DevOps Test Embedded (Test Embedded), ETM allows users to create test environments and scripts, deploy and run tests, and view HTML reports. This integration enables the creation of ETM test environments linked to Test Embedded target deployment ports, the deployment and execution of Test Embedded tests through the ETM interface, and the mapping of ETM test scripts to Test Embedded test suites. Additionally, users can import test suites as ETM test scripts, build new ETM test cases, and view test results as HTML reports within ETM. The integration requires the Test Embedded adapter service to be running on the user's computer.

IBM

Sample Customers

Citrix, Aflac, Xerox, American InterContinental University, UMASS, ITT Technical Institute, Roanoke College

Ehrhardt, Cisco Systems, Anadolu Hayat Emeklilik, CareCore National, ItaÒ BBA, Barr

Buyer's Guide

Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing vs. IBM Engineering Test Management

April 2025

Free Report: Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing vs. IBM Engineering Test Management

Find out what your peers are saying about Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing vs. IBM Engineering Test Management and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing vs. IBM Engineering Test Management 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.