No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs OpenText Application Quality Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 1, 2026

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

IBM Rational Performance Te...
Ranking in Test Management Tools
15th
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Application Qualit...
Ranking in Test Management Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (3rd), Quality Management Software (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Performance Tester is 3.4%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 9.4%, down from 12.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management9.4%
IBM Rational Performance Tester3.4%
Other87.2%
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil - PeerSpot reviewer
CEO at Xcelliti
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.
Hosney Osman - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Solution Architect at Vodafone
Service provider recognizes effective project tracking and reporting capabilities
Regarding integration with various development tools, I can provide examples, and I am using customizable dashboards in OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, which definitely help identify project bottlenecks. As for the scalability of OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, there are limitations, particularly in agile methodologies, which is currently my main concern.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Helped in improving response times in a few of our transactions."
"Once you are used to this tool, it is user friendly and provides very good analysis for web applications."
"With each new version, the tool gets better and better features."
"Technical support is very good. I'm very satisfied with the assistance we've received so far."
"This tool is very scalable, and for large scale tests, i.e., 5000 virtual users and up, it performs very well."
"The setup was straightforward, it depends on the company's regulations and infrastructure policies."
"It's one of the most cost-effective products on the market."
"Comprehensive Rational Performance Tester results allow testers to identify bottlenecks in the systems under test."
"Technical Support is great and always responsive to solve the issues."
"We have a pretty strong emphasis on quality, so ALM is our gold source repository for quality."
"To someone looking at Quality Center, I would tell them: It's a good tool to use and the support is good."
"Being able to manage tests as this is something very difficult to find in other products."
"It has enterprise-grade stability and we never have any issues with it."
"It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel, allowing us to download reports easily."
"By using QC we broke down silos (of teams), improved the organization of our tests, have a much better view of the testing status, and became much quicker in providing test results with document generation."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
 

Cons

"The tool has lots of limitations."
"User friendliness can be better, as this is one area where it lacks."
"It is complex for a novice."
"The HP tool is overall a little better but much more expensive."
"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."
"As intuitive as a product can be, its use could still benefit from a decent set of manuals or guides."
"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."
"There are some features that Micro Focus LoadRunner provides, but they are not available in IBM Rational Performance Tester."
"It's doing what it should do, but it's a little bit costly. I would like to see some kind of testing analytics."
"The uploading of test scripts can get a little cumbersome and that is a very sensitive task. They could improve on that a lot. It's really important that this gets better as I'm loading close to a thousand test scripts per cycle."
"Too many users logged in at a particular time affects the Quality Center response time dramatically."
"HP is very strong on the testing side, but in the last few years with the agile methodology it has lagged behind."
"The browser support needs to be improved in this because it supports only Internet Explorer as of now; it does not have support for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or any other browser."
"We need to move test cases manually from Test Case module to Test Execution module. This consumes more manual interaction."
"Premium support is great, but before that when we just had general support, it was not all that great."
"The reporting feature could be improved. It would be better if they simplified some things."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"Pricing is managed by our headquarters. I am able to get from them for very cheap. The market price is horribly expensive."
"It has several limitations in adapting its agility easily."
"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."
"Sure, HP UFT is not free. But consider what you get for that cost: A stable product that is easy to use; the kitchen sink of technology stack support; decades of code (which in many cases actually is free); a version that is a stepping stone to an easier Selenium design; and a support base that is more that just the kindness of strangers."
"The cost of licensing depends on the number of VMs that you are running test cases on and it is not cheap."
"I've never been in the procurement process for it. I don't think it is cheap. Some of the features can be quite expensive."
"It all comes down to how many people are going to access the tool. When teams go above 20, I think ALM is a better tool to use from a collaboration and streamlining perspective."
"This is an expensive solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
895,891 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Healthcare Company
7%
Government
7%
Construction Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Performing Arts
7%
Marketing Services Firm
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise8
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise161
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
The on-premises setup tends to be on the expensive side. It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
Regarding integration with various development tools, I can provide examples, and I am using customizable dashboards in OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, which definitely help identify project bottlen...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
People are using OpenText ALM _ Quality Center for recording user cases, testing and hand documentation, defect tracking, business purposes, and reporting.
 

Also Known As

Rational Performance Tester
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM, OpenText Quality Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

andagon, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Application Quality Management and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
895,891 professionals have used our research since 2012.