We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager and OpenText LoadRunner Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Load Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's very reliable as a solution."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"Integration with the other professional tools is a very strong advantage, so that we can have a traceability between the requirements and defects in Rational Team Concert. That's the most important aspect."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"Scaling is definitely one of the best features of this solution. There are no issues scaling to 10,000 or 20,000 concurrent users."
"I appreciate its ability to handle various internal calls and its user-friendly interface."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"We don't find any features lacking. One of the most beneficial points we have from LoadRunner is we start sizing our infrastructure accordingly. So what we do is when we deploy a new workload, we do performance testing."
"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."
"The stability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is very high. It is the leading tool for stability."
"The solution helps my clients save time. It is easier to capture reports and improves product quality. The product helps to identify customer defects during performance tests and reduces workloads. The product has improved my client's user interaction. It has reduced peak load times."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"In terms of resource management, you need a lot of high capacity boxes if you need to generate a load of 1,000 or 2,000 users."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high-quality technical support, I rate the support a one."
"The monitoring technology in LoadRunner could be improved. It depends on another tool called SiteScope, but they only took a part of the features of SiteScope. They need to improve on that."
"There is room for improvement of the pilot processing, the dump analysis, and forwarding results based on the dump analysis. We have a generator, root controller, different agents, and an analyzer, so all of these are very important when it comes to LoadRunner."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"The technical support of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. I had an issue with the licensing and their response time is slow. They can improve on this in the future."
"Instead of having too many graphs and tabs, use the analysis section to get a more simplified defect analysis."
"IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 15th in Load Testing Tools with 11 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 76 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Quality Manager writes "Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and IBM Rational Performance Tester. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional report.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load Testing 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.