We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, and Telerik Test Studio based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Load Testing Tools."It's very reliable as a solution."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"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."
"The front loader and the reporting features are the most valuable aspects of OpenText LoadRunner Professional."
"The solution is quite stable."
"I am impressed with the tool's correlation function."
"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."
"LoadRunner Professional allowed us to load test potential new payroll solutions that would be implemented throughout the entire organization so that we knew which was best suited to performing well under pressure."
"My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional are the separate module for scripting, execution analysis, and integration with a lot of new things pipeline areas. They keep updating their releases. Recently, they have released different versions, such as the professional and enterprise. They're coming up with new features which are good."
"The capabilities and flexibility of the Controller, the ability to monitor the systems under test, and the comprehensive results Analysis which saves a great deal of time."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"The flexibility could be improved."
"Lacks specific level monitoring."
"The pricing model, selling model, and business model need to be adjusted. For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost."
"Licensing costs could be reduced."
"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."
"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."
"We still have some issues with integration with things like SiteScope which, obviously, being another HPE product should be very straightforward, but there are always issues around that."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →