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 208 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 881,114 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

208

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

Greg Stone

Partner at IS Nordic AS

Manages multiple releases seamlessly

We have done some work with companies, probably four or five years ago and found the ability to manage multiple releases simultaneously as a main advantage, especially in complex programs with multiple concurrent releases. Running automated tests against back-level versions in certain environments is possible, and newer versions can be tested as well. It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results. It is a solid product in large corporations in Denmark, ensuring everyone knows where the process stands. There is a good understanding of what is critical, allowing prioritization of test cases.

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."

"You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system."

"Cross project customization through template really helps to maintain standards with respect to fields, workflows throughout the available projects."

"What's most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is that it's useful for these activities: test designing, test planning, and test execution."

"The most valuable feature is the ST Add-In. It's a Microsoft add-in that makes it much easier to upload test cases into Quality Center."

"Having used the tool before, I like the use of parameters, being able to do exports and reports of the data for monitoring of executions, and the defect management as well. I feel satisfaction in that area."

"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."

"We were able to manage test cases effectively when we were using it. It worked well for us."

"With test execution, you have an option to create custom fields. It is also really user-friendly. With other tools, we only have restricted fields and we cannot customize or add new columns or fields that users can make use of while testing. ALM is very flexible for creating new fields. It is easy for users to understand the application."

More OpenText Application Quality Management pros

Cons

"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."

"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 reporting feature could be improved. It would be better if they simplified some things."

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

"We cannot rearrange the Grid in the Test Lab. It is in alphabetical order right now. But sometimes a user will want to see, for example, the X column next to the B column. If they came out with that it would be useful for us. They are working on that, as we have raised that request with Micro Focus."

"Quality Center's ability to connect all the different projects to reflect status and progress is quite complicated. We may develop something because there are so many projects. Right now, I have to do something which Quality Center is really not designed for: over reporting. This is a very big problem right now. We may develop some controls, but it is problem at the moment. I love Quality Center for individual projects to work with it. However, if you have a lot of projects for Quality Manager to do cross reporting on many projects, then it's almost impossible. It takes a lot of time."

"ALM only works on Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on any other browser. In my opinion, Internet Explorer is generally a bit slower. I would like to see it work on Chrome or on other browsers."

"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."

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

"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."

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."

"The solution has the ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment with the correct license."

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive. The price is approximately £2,000 per person, they are too expensive to corner the market."

"Most vendors offer the same pricing, though some vendors offer a cheaper price for their cloud/SaaS solution versus their on-premise. However, cloud/SaaS solutions result in a loss of freedom. E.g., if you want to make a change, most of the time it needs to be validated by the vendor, then you're being charged an addition fee. Sometimes, even if you are rejected, you are charged because it's a risk to the entire environment."

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

"ALM Quality Center is a little bit costly."

"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."

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

881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

23%

Computer Software Company

11%

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 14% 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

881,114 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.