IBM Rational Performance Tester vs OpenText Application Quality Management comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. IBM is ranked #23, while OpenText is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.2. IBM holds a 2.3% mindshare in TMT, compared to OpenText’s 9.0% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

IBM Rational Performance Te...

Read 17 IBM Rational Performance Tester reviews

754 Views
279 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Application Qualit...

Read 209 OpenText Application Quality Management reviews

5,872 Views
1,762 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

IBM Rational Performance Te...

OpenText Application Qualit...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 23, 2025

IBM Rational Performance Tester and OpenText Application Quality Management compete in the software testing tools category. IBM has an edge with favorable pricing and support, while OpenText is strong in features.

Features: IBM Rational Performance Tester provides strong test automation, supports multiple test types like load and stress testing, and offers easy server integration. OpenText Application Quality Management integrates well with agile processes and multiple platforms, supports complex test management, and offers comprehensive traceability of testing artifacts.

Room for Improvement: IBM could improve its customization ease, enhance agile integration, and offer quicker deployment solutions. OpenText may need to streamline its interface for easier navigation, reduce feature bloat for better usability, and enhance integration with non-agile environments.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText offers straightforward deployment and proactive customer support, ensuring quick integration and efficient problem resolution. IBM, though dependable, requires customization for deployment, potentially creating complexities but maintaining reliable support.

Pricing and ROI: IBM is attractive for budget-conscious organizations with its competitive setup costs and favorable ROI for extensive testing demands. OpenText has higher setup costs, justified by its feature-rich offering, delivering substantial ROI in agile environments.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Application Quality Management Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Application Quality Management

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,036 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

IBM Rational Performance Te...

Ranking in Test Management Tools

23rd

Average Rating

7.6

Number of Reviews

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

209

Ranking in other categories

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (4th), Quality Management Software (1st)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Performance Tester is 2.3%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 9.0%, down from 12.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Management Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management	9.0%
IBM Rational Performance Tester	2.3%
Other	88.7%

Test Management Tools

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil

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.

Read full review

BRIANJOHNSON2

Independant Consultant at Reckitt

Test management has standardized our programs but reporting remains manual and time consuming

Test management helps to streamline the quality assurance process through the process I put in place on how to use the tool. The tool is just a conduit. It is the process that I put in place that the team follows that drives the testing in the tool. Regarding real-time tracking and reporting and how it helps enhance project management within my organization, the reporting is still awful. We normally do a lot of manual reporting. It always has been awful and always will be awful until they actually bolt on a reporting tool that I can quickly pull out. It is not there, and it is awful. The reporting part is definitely something to improve.

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

"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."

"Running automated tests against back-level versions in certain environments is possible, and newer versions can be tested as well."

"The setup is pretty straightforward."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is the alignment of the test to the execution and the linking of the defects to the two. It automatically links any issues you have to the test."

"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."

"Most of the features that I like the best are more on the analytics side."

"Test management helps to streamline the quality assurance process through the process I put in place on how to use the tool."

"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."

"The most valuable features of OpenText ALM include its integration with the automation landscape, the ability to capture requirements and map them to test cases, and the capability to schedule runs through ALM."

More OpenText Application Quality Management pros

Cons

"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."

"Currently, what's missing in the solution is the ability for users to see the ongoing scenarios and the status of those scenarios versus the requirements. As for the management tools, they also need to be improved so users can have a better idea of what's going on in just one look, so they can manage testing activities better."

"They should specify every protocol or process with labels or names."

"There are great features, however, transitioning between partners and managing a large number of test cases can be time-consuming."

"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."

"There are cases where the system does not meet our reporting requirements."

"As soon as it's available on-premises we want to move to ALM Octane as it's mainly web based, has the capability to work with major tests, and integrates with Jenkins for continuous integration."

"As for the scalability of OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, there are limitations, particularly in agile methodologies, which is currently my main concern."

"Certain applications within this solution are not really compatible with certain applications like ERP. The problem is when we're trying to use these applications or devices, the solution itself doesn't scale."

More OpenText Application Quality Management cons

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."

"Only major companies that can afford it use OpenText ALM."

"Depending on the volume, the annual maintenance costs vary on a percentage but it's around $300 a year per license for maintenance. It's at 18% of the total cost of the license."

"If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."

"Pricing is managed by our headquarters. I am able to get from them for very cheap. The market price is horribly expensive."

"The pricing is expensive nowadays."

"The enterprise pricing and licensing are reasonable."

"I feel that the licenses are expensive. "

"It has several limitations in adapting its agility easily."

More OpenText Application Quality Management pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

881,036 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

23%

Computer Software Company

12%

Government

Real Estate/Law Firm

Manufacturing Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Performing Arts

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	8

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	39
Midsize Enterprise	32
Large Enterprise	162

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

Comparisons

Apache JMeter vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 26% of the time

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 22% of the time

Tricentis NeoLoad vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 13% of the time

Visual Studio Test Professional vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 10% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 6% of the time

More IBM Rational Performance Tester Competitors

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 13% of the time

OpenText Software Delivery Management vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 9% of the time

Jira vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 9% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 8% of the time

Rally Software vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Application Quality Management Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Performance Tester

January 2026

Download IBM Rational Performance Tester product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Application Quality Management

January 2026

OpenText Application Quality Management report

Download OpenText Application Quality Management product report

Also Known As

Rational Performance Tester

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM, OpenText Quality Manager

Overview

IBM Rational Performance Tester is a performance testing solution that validates the scalability of web and server applications. Rational Performance Tester identifies the presence and cause of system performance bottlenecks and reduces load testing complexity.

IBM

OpenText Application Quality Management offers centralized data management, traceability, and integration capabilities. It aids in handling requirements, test planning, and defect tracking while supporting both manual and automated testing. Challenges exist in deployment and browser compatibility.

Known for its robust reporting and flexibility, OpenText Application Quality Management is tailored for large organizations requiring a comprehensive solution supporting lifecycle coverage and seamless tool integration. Users can consolidate testing processes, manage requirements, and centralize reporting across manual and automated testing. While some face issues with project tracking, outdated interfaces, and limited browser compatibility beyond Internet Explorer, it remains widely used for regression and performance testing. Integration with tools like JIRA and support for tools such as UFT and ALM PC underscore its utility.

What are the key features of OpenText Application Quality Management?

Centralized Data Management: Consolidates and organizes testing data efficiently.
Traceability: Ensures traceability across all stages of the testing lifecycle.
Integration Capabilities: Connects seamlessly with automation and other essential tools.
Test Planning and Execution: Supports both manual and automated tests in a streamlined manner.
Advanced Reporting: Provides robust options to generate insightful test reports.
Customization: Offers tailored solutions to fit specific organizational needs.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Efficiency: Increases test management efficiency across projects.
Scalability: Adapts to the varying scope of large-scale projects.
Lifecycle Coverage: Comprehensive management from requirement to defect tracking.
User-Friendly Interface: Designed for ease of use despite needing updates.
Cost-Effectiveness: Balances high initial costs with long-term savings through efficient testing management.

In industries such as finance and healthcare, OpenText Application Quality Management is implemented to ensure rigorous testing standards. It supports test case creation and execution, defect tracking, and requirements management. Integration with JIRA and performance testing tools make it suitable for organizations needing synchronized testing environments.

OpenText

Sample Customers

andagon, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Application Quality Management

December 2025

Free Report: IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Application Quality Management

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Application Quality Management and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,036 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Application Quality Management report.

See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.

We monitor all Test Management 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.