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 Jun 19, 2025

IBM Rational Performance Tester and OpenText Application Quality Management are direct competitors in the software testing market. IBM is often preferred due to its appealing pricing and robust customer support, while OpenText is favored for its advanced feature set.

Features: IBM Rational Performance Tester is known for its powerful test scripts, automated load testing capabilities, and insightful analytical reports. It supports test cases data pools and logging features, and has extensive protocol support, including HTTP and SAP. OpenText Application Quality Management excels in comprehensive test management, requirements management, and defect tracking, with standout integration capabilities with various automation tools.

Room for Improvement: IBM Rational Performance Tester could enhance its user interface to be more intuitive, improve the flexibility of its resource monitoring options, and offer better integration with third-party tools. OpenText Application Quality Management may benefit from simplifying its setup process, reducing its dependency on initial high investment, and expanding its support for cloud-based deployment strategies.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText offers flexible deployment options including SaaS, on-premise, and hybrid models, supported by a robust customer service team. IBM provides a more straightforward deployment process that is generally easier to handle, with reliable support services that assist users effectively.

Pricing and ROI: IBM Rational Performance Tester is appreciated for its competitive pricing, conducive to a favorable ROI with lower initial costs and efficient testing outcomes. OpenText Application Quality Management, although associated with higher initial costs, justifies these expenses with a comprehensive feature set and extensive management tools that promise significant long-term ROI.

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 865,295 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 most valuable Quality Center feature, I find, is the solution's integration with some of our automation tools. For us, the ability to capture and record and the ease of use from a user perspective, are all key."

"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."

"I love linking/associating the requirements to a test case. That's where I get to know my requirement coverage, which helps a lot at a practical level. So, we use the traceability and visibility features a lot. This helps us to understand if there are any requirements not linked to any test case, thus not getting tested at all. That missing link is always very visible, which helps us to create our requirement traceability matrix and maintain it in a dynamic way. Even with changing requirements, we can keep on changing or updating the tool."

"The integration with UFT is nice."

"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."

"Ability to customize modules, particularly Defect Tracking module on company specific needs"

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies."

"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."

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."

"I would like to be able to search easier, not just do SQL queries, being able to do free keyword searches on the data. That's valuable."

"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."

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

"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 in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."

"It is pricey."

"The BPT also known as Business Process Testing can sometimes be very time intensive and sometimes might not be very intuitive to someone who is not familiar with BPT."

"ALM requires that you install client side components. If your organization does not allow admin rights on your local machine, this means you will need someone to run the installation for you with admin rights. This client side install is also limited to Internet Explorer and does not support any other browsers."

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."

"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 pricing is expensive nowadays."

"It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution."

"The enterprise pricing and licensing are reasonable."

"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."

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

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

"Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less 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

865,295 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

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 extensive capabilities in test management, automation tool integration, and defect traceability, providing an efficient and user-friendly experience for tracking and managing testing workflows.

The platform supports test management by integrating with automation tools and managing the traceability of defects and requirements. It facilitates users with linking test cases to defects, uploading from Excel, and generating customizable reports, which enhances efficiency. Business Process Testing and requirement capturing for test cases further extend its capabilities. Users report concerns about its integration with other tools, particularly in DevOps and agile frameworks, as well as challenges with its complex interface and high cost. Improved integration, better browser compatibility, upgraded dashboards, and enhanced support for agile methodologies are recommended by many users.

What are the most important features of OpenText Application Quality Management?

Integration with Automation Tools: Facilitates seamless testing through integration.
Test Management: Centralized management of test scenarios and cycles.
Defect Traceability: Links defects with test cases for comprehensive tracking.
Excel Uploads: Allows users to import data directly from spreadsheets.
Customizable Reports: Offers tailored reporting capabilities to suit user needs.
Business Process Testing: Supports streamlined testing of business processes.
Requirement Capturing: Efficiently captures and maps test case requirements.

What benefits or ROI can users expect?

Efficiency: Increases speed and accuracy in managing test processes.
Comprehensive Tracking: Provides a thorough view of test and defect linkages.
User-Friendly Interface: Enhances ease of use and reduces complexity.
Improved Testing Accuracy: Facilitates better detection and management of defects.
Cost-Effectiveness: Balances functionality with investment value.

In industries such as finance, healthcare, and technology, organizations apply OpenText Application Quality Management for test management, planning, and automation. It is an essential tool for managing test scenarios, recording results, and supporting both manual and automated testing processes. This tool aids in regression testing, ensuring requirement traceability and acting as a repository for executing test cycles, thereby supporting robust quality assurance practices.

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

865,295 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.