We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Test Workbench and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."
"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"For me, LoadRunner stands out, especially with its reporting capabilities, the graphs that can be generated, and the unique feature of measuring our application's response alongside our infrastructure metrics, such as CPU, memory, or disk usage, all presented in graph form. This is something other applications struggle to match."
"The user interface is fine."
"With LoadRunner Enterprise, doing various types of performance testing, load testing, and automation testing has been very helpful for some of the teams."
"Creating the script is very easy and user friendly."
"The product is very user-friendly."
"The most valuable part of the product is the way you can scale the basic testing easily."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly."
"Support is nice, quick, and responsive."
"There are a number of things that they can do to simplify the tools, but the most important thing that they need to do is simplify the installation."
"It should have more interfaces. In terms of interfaces or protocols, what you can do with Rational is far limited as compared to other products out there. What it does, it does great, but it only gives you limited types of protocols. It supports between 8 to 15 types of protocols, whereas other test tools give you 20 to 30 types of protocols with which you can do testing and convert to script. It records Javascript-based scripts, and you got to know a little bit of Java to basically be able to edit them, but the level of editing you got to do is very low. I like that, but the ability to edit the script is not as good as Parasoft or LoadRunner, which have C-Script."
"The price of this solution could be less expensive. However, this category of solutions is expensive."
"The installation has not been straightforward, and we have had so many problems. We have had to re-install, try to install on a different machine, etc. We have not been able to launch the LRE server itself yet."
"On the newer versions, I think the bleeding edge is still being worked on."
"Third-party product integrations could be a little more slickly handled."
"The product's scalability must be improved."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, I need to spend a lot of time training people, while on other low-code or no-code platforms, I need not invest that much time."
"Integration can be tricky during the setup process."
"New features have been added in latest version and need to be improved with the DevOps integration."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
IBM Rational Test Workbench is ranked 18th in Performance Testing Tools while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews. IBM Rational Test Workbench is rated 7.6, while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Test Workbench writes "Good reporting and interface, but supports limited types of protocols and requires low-level script editing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". IBM Rational Test Workbench is most compared with , whereas OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Apache JMeter. See our IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance 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.
