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

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

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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...
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (15th)
OpenText Professional Perfo...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (2nd), Load Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. IBM Rational Performance Tester is designed for Test Management Tools and holds a mindshare of 3.4%, up 1.2% compared to last year.
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional), on the other hand, focuses on Performance Testing Tools, holds 13.6% mindshare, up 13.5% since last year.
Test Management Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM Rational Performance Tester3.4%
OpenText Application Quality Management9.4%
TestRail6.3%
Other80.9%
Test Management Tools
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)13.6%
Tricentis NeoLoad10.7%
Apache JMeter10.4%
Other65.30000000000001%
Performance Testing 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.
SD
Assistant Consultant at Tata Consultancy
Experience a decade of seamless performance with robust support
I would like to improve OpenText LoadRunner Professional based on what we discussed in our last discussion, as those points remain similar and applicable. For future updates, I would like to see the same features that people generally prefer. I find that AI functionality in OpenText LoadRunner Professional should be improved and more accessible; if we get a chance to work with that, then we can check how much it helps.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Virtual Users."
"I strongly recommend this solution to others."
"ROI is big because we do not need vendors to assist some with performance testing."
"Less coding is needed, it is easy to understand, and it is easy to integrate with existing systems so I can test more than one performance test type, including load testing, stress testing, and scalability testing."
"The setup was straightforward, it depends on the company's regulations and infrastructure policies."
"This tool is very scalable, and for large scale tests, i.e., 5000 virtual users and up, it performs very well."
"Customization and extensions made in Java is valuable because this can help you set elements to improve your results."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of LoadRunner is its ability to simulate multiple uses at the same time."
"For me as a user, the flexibility in different protocols and things like that which can be tested with the tool."
"The most important feature for us is that it supports a lot of protocols because we support all of them, including HTTP, FTP, mainframe, and others."
"The solution supports a lot of protocols."
"It is a good and stable tool."
"Enables us to test most of the products and projects that we have across all the different technologies, without having to look at other tools."
"Real-time performance stats, analysis tool, protocol coverage, and simple integration of external monitors are the most valuable features."
"It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system."
 

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."
"We had open many PMRs for problems found in the products, and I'm not sure if all of them have been fixed."
"It is complex for a novice."
"I’d like to see a tighter integration with Rational Quality Manager and the Jazz platform."
"The installation and tool setup can take some time, since this involves several components."
"User friendliness can be better, as this is one area where it lacks."
"There are some features that Micro Focus LoadRunner provides, but they are not available in IBM Rational Performance Tester."
"Now, the price slightly expensive especially if you are in small-medium company, but if you are in a medium-high company, and need the powerful tools with IBM great name, just use it."
"To be frank, the earlier version (graded I-5 and graded I-6) was very bad for me."
"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays."
"There should be more integration with more open-source platforms."
"Sometimes we are not be able to click on some of the buttons due to the screen mismatching and compatibility issues."
"We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly."
"Network monitoring."
"The flexibility could be improved. For example, there are some use cases where I prefer to use NeoLoad rather than LoadRunner because of the flexibility that it provides."
 

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."
"LoadRunner Professional's licensing costs are on the higher side, apart from the Community Edition."
"The pricing model and the software licensing model could be better."
"The solution's pricing is expensive."
"The licensing is on a yearly basis and is relatively expensive."
"Pricing depends on our choices because it depends on what type of protocol we are getting, what type of licensing we are getting, and what kind of relationships we have with HP and Micro Focus."
"The price is a bit on the high side, but it is still affordable."
"The pricing model, especially when involving partners, could use some improvement."
"The licensing of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. If it can be easier and the concurrent run can be included with the current total number of users, it would be helpful."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Penetration and Neoload Tester at a university with 501-1,000 employees
Apr 13, 2014
LoadRunner vs NeoLoad
The six phases of an IT project Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent (the performance tester) Praise and rewards for the incompetent non-participants This article has been put together as part of an evaluation of the performance test tools NeoLoad and…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Construction Company
7%
Government
7%
Healthcare Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Construction Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

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 Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise66
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
When designing a workload model offers a good range of possibilities for creating goal-oriented scenarios, which helps us understand and meet SLAs.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
I have mentioned many advantages about this product, but to discuss disadvantages or areas that could be improved, I would need to consult with my engineers who are working on it. So far I have not...
 

Also Known As

Rational Performance Tester
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

andagon, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon
JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, IDERA, UiPath and others in Test Management Tools. Updated: April 2026.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.