We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager and Telerik Test Studio 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 allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"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."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"The performance and load testing are very 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."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"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."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 15th in Load Testing Tools with 11 reviews while Telerik Test Studio is ranked 14th in Load Testing Tools with 5 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while Telerik Test Studio is rated 8.0. 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 Telerik Test Studio writes "Very good performance and load testing capabilities". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest, whereas Telerik Test Studio is most compared with Selenium HQ, Ranorex Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, Katalon Studio and Tricentis Tosca. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. Telerik Test Studio report.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.