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

IBM Engineering Test Management vs RadView WebLOAD comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 6, 2025

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 Engineering Test Manage...
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
16th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (15th)
RadView WebLOAD
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Engineering Test Management is 2.3%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RadView WebLOAD is 3.5%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
RadView WebLOAD3.5%
IBM Engineering Test Management2.3%
Other94.2%
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HZ
Lead Systems Tester at Government of Ontario, Canada
Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team
IBM Rational has the RFT, which is rational functional testing. We do test automation with rational functional testing. So after we do that, we can put in all the code, then I can build it, then put all the test cases, and put all the build code for the shared location. And then rational that shared location means that RQM has access to the shared location. So, when we execute, if a test case is automated, we can run it from RQM. We need to have the environment ready for it to execute. Once we have that, then we can select the task case. So, by clicking on one button, the other environment is automatically plugged in. Then test results will be automatically transferred back to our RQM. So, in RQM, we can view it, and it is integrated. So we can run the test and the automation from RQM, and the test results will come back. Azure DevOps first test case is there, but then we tried to use Selenium to do half automation. Still, we realized that it wouldn't have the integration. We could do something in the pipeline, but it fires the Selenium test automation code. But then the test results won't be brought back or added to AzureDesk DevOps. That's something that I do hope that there can be another other system that can have this kind of integration. RQM can be improved because it's not related to our server and could be faster. We need to find out how much database storage is needed and keep increasing it. We heard that the latest version of RQM can clean up some old ones and give the same test result. But that one feature we are yet to use. It's a setting that we can set up, and then it goes automatically or gives me the choice to do it manually.
it_user1265766 - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Team Lead at Medtronic, Inc.
IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process but the reporting is complicated
You pay for the number of users that you're going to be utilizing. In order to scale up, you would have to pay for additional users, but for our use case, we're able to scale fairly easily. We have a license for 500, but we're using half of that for our initial workflow. For maintenance, as far as I'm aware, there's only one person really working on the maintenance of it and we only really have one user consistently using the software. He's a QA person. We don't have any plans to increase our usage. Even though we've had it for a while, we have a major push to start utilizing it more. I imagine we'll probably be using it and utilizing it across our QA team in the next year. We're in the process of determining whether we're going to keep it or not due to the fact that it is so expensive. That's why I've been researching alternatives for the RadView.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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 product is very fast, very reliable as a solution, and well structured so you can customize it within your business workflows."
"Testing can be linked with requirements, which makes traceability very easy."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"In the latest version, Global Configuration is the most promising feature as it allows the user to maintain different versions of the same artifact in different streams."
"They are the best of all of the vendors I deal with, hands down."
"The ability to conceptualize the experience for users is great, the price as the bang for your buck is good, the user interface is quite user friendly, and the graphics make it easy to follow and are easy to identify."
"The tool itself is very viable for us."
"The solution is simple and useful."
"Customer service is excellent; they're very responsive and willing to work extra hours, and in the first couple of hours that we were up and running, they taught us how to implement it and to figure out and negotiate AWS."
"Technical support has been excellent, responsive, and helpful in trying to work through issues and questions."
"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
 

Cons

"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"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."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"Well there’s one issue when I have five or six scripts-- you have to set up different percentages and the number of connections and users, no matter how I tweak it seems that when I have one of the load scripts in the mix set, a percentage of less than 8-10%, there’s a probability that it won’t run at all."
"The reporting side of things is really complicated. It's difficult to get out exactly what you're looking for, there are almost too many options."
"We did have an issue with some of the script working incorrectly in our higher environments."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
"They can improve in the reporting - the ability to generate custom reports."
"There is no analytical dashboard."
"The reporting side of things is really complicated. It's difficult to get out exactly what you're looking for, there are almost too many options."
"I would like to be able to edit a scenario instead of re-recording a scenario."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licenses of these tools (the whole CLM package) is very costly as compared to other vendors' tools."
"Each license includes 12 months of customer support. A free 90-day trial of the software is also available."
"We purchased a license for two years."
"It costs $8,600 yearly and we have the Cloud, which is an additional $800. Our perpetual license is $800 and then the Cloud functionality with our 500 users is the $8,600."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
889,955 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Healthcare Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Construction Company
9%
Performing Arts
13%
Government
10%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise7
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Large Enterprise10
 

Also Known As

IBM Rational Quality Manager, Rational Quality Manager
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Ehrhardt, Cisco Systems, Anadolu Hayat Emeklilik, CareCore National, ItaÒ BBA, Barr
GoDaddy, Praxair, DeVry University and the College Board.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Engineering Test Management vs. RadView WebLOAD and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
889,955 professionals have used our research since 2012.