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 #25, while OpenText is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.1. IBM holds a 1.5% mindshare in TMT, compared to OpenText’s 12.5% 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

588 Views
106 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Application Qualit...

Read 208 OpenText Application Quality Management reviews

5,145 Views
1,389 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

IBM Rational Performance Te...

OpenText Application Qualit...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 20, 2025

IBM Rational Performance Tester and OpenText Application Quality Management are competitive in the performance testing and application quality markets. Data indicates that IBM Rational Performance Tester may lead in pricing and support, whereas OpenText Application Quality Management has a stronger feature set.

Features: IBM Rational Performance Tester supports automated load and performance testing, user workload simulation, and integrates with IBM's Rational suite. OpenText Application Quality Management emphasizes test management, offers detailed project oversight and traceability, and integrates with other OpenText solutions.

Room for Improvement: IBM Rational Performance Tester could enhance its cloud deployment options, improve user interface simplicity, and reduce the complexity of on-premise installations. OpenText Application Quality Management may benefit from more competitive pricing structures, streamlined feature integrations, and improved out-of-the-box reporting functionalities.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Application Quality Management offers flexible cloud deployment and supportive customer service, easing implementation and management. IBM Rational Performance Tester typically requires more complex on-premise deployment but benefits from IBM's strong support infrastructure.

Pricing and ROI: IBM Rational Performance Tester provides a competitive ROI with bundled solutions and lower setup costs, appealing to budget-conscious buyers. In contrast, OpenText Application Quality Management involves higher initial costs, yet offers substantial ROI through extensive features and integration strength.

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

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Application Quality Management

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,384 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

25th

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

6.6

Number of Reviews

208

Ranking in other categories

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Performance Tester is 1.5%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 12.5%, up from 12.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

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

Hosney Osman

Senior Operation Engineer 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.

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."

"The solution's most valuable features are its bidirectional traceability, the solid structure within the test plan, and the test lab."

"So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."

"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."

"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."

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

"It was really good, customizable, and easy to use."

"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."

"It's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched."

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."

"I would rate it a 10 if it had the template functionality on the web side, had better interfaces between other applications, so that we didn't have dual data entry or have to set up our own migrations."

"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."

"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."

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

"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."

"The solution needs to offer support for Agile. Currently, ALM only supports Waterfall."

"Quality Center's UI is outdated, and it's a little bit slow on the login part and different parts of the application. That's why we're switching solutions. I believe most companies are switching to Octane or something else. Micro Focus should enhance the interface and reports."

"Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."

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."

"The full ALM license lets you use the requirements tab, along with test automation and the Performance Center. You can also just buy the Quality Center edition (Manual testing only), or the Performance Center version (Performance Testing only)."

"The solution was expensive for us."

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

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive."

"The pricing is expensive nowadays."

"ALM Quality Center is a little bit costly."

"We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us."

"For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."

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

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

26%

Government

15%

Computer Software Company

15%

Outsourcing Company

Manufacturing Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Computer Software Company

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

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.

See all answers

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?

See all answers

Comparisons

Apache JMeter vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 53% of the time

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

Compared 29% of the time

Tricentis NeoLoad vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 18% of the time

More IBM Rational Performance Tester Competitors

OpenText Software Delivery Management vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 18% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 16% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 12% of the time

Jira vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 12% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Application Quality Management Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Performance Tester

August 2025

Download IBM Rational Performance Tester product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Application Quality Management

August 2025

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

July 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: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,384 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.