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

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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 Rational Test Workbench
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
18th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (16th), Test Automation Tools (28th)
OpenText Professional Perfo...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 2.1%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is 16.8%, up from 13.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)16.8%
IBM Rational Test Workbench2.1%
Other81.1%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1513668 - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Specialist, ITE at a government with 10,001+ employees
Good reporting and interface, but supports limited types of protocols and requires low-level script editing
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.
SD
Assistant Consultant at Tata Consultancy
Experience a decade of seamless performance with robust support
I would like to improve OpenText LoadRunner Professional based on what we discussed in our last discussion, as those points remain similar and applicable. For future updates, I would like to see the same features that people generally prefer. I find that AI functionality in OpenText LoadRunner Professional should be improved and more accessible; if we get a chance to work with that, then we can check how much it helps.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Using service virtualization, we are able to accelerate the testing and development activity."
"IBM Rational integrates the testing software as Rational Test Workbench, which is quite convenient and efficient as it is able to automate the test scripts."
"This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."
"All IBM testing tools are really well integrated."
"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"The stability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is very high. It is the leading tool for stability."
"The implementation was very straightforward and not an issue."
"LoadRunner Professional's most valuable features are the easy setup, the auto-correlation feature, the high number of protocols, the analysis, and the reporting."
"It is very costly, but LoadRunner works perfectly."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"LoadRunner is still my first choice."
"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"I think it's been the backbone of performance testing for 20+ years and must be given credit for helping establish the discipline."
 

Cons

"Rational Performance Tester supports cloud technology in the version 8.7, playing test scripts back on the cloud is not stable."
"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."
"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."
"Implementing custom functions is bit tedious job, as ECMA script does not support some of the standard java-script functions, Also the Script editor window is not user friendly."
"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."
"Lacks specific level monitoring."
"The debugging capability is difficult to use and should be improved."
"The technical support is not as great as we expected them to be."
"Customer Service: I'd say that customer service is not good. Technical Support: Technical support is also not good."
"It needs to be easier to use. I know LoadRunner so I think it's a tool that's difficult to understand."
"The only scenario we see a complexity is when we have single-page applications where JavaScript is talking to the server and coming back. That's the only scenario where we find some difficulties."
"I also use the TrueClient feature for browser-based testing. I found the TrueClient feature to be a bit difficult to use and not very user-friendly for automating scripts."
"Scripting should be simpler, it becomes very complex many times."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It doesn't really concern me. Licensing is on a yearly basis."
"The pricing is a little bit on the higher side, although it is really good."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise's pricing is reasonable."
"I would still consider LoadRunner as an expensive tool and you get a LoadRunner and the Performance Center."
"The pricing model, especially when involving partners, could use some improvement."
"The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user."
"There is an annual license required to use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional. There are not any additional costs other than the licensing fees to use it."
"Pricing depends on our choices because it depends on what type of protocol we are getting, what type of licensing we are getting, and what kind of relationships we have with HP and Micro Focus."
"The pricing model and the software licensing model could be better."
"I would rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Penetration and Neoload Tester at a university with 501-1,000 employees
Apr 13, 2014
LoadRunner vs NeoLoad
The six phases of an IT project Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent (the performance tester) Praise and rewards for the incompetent non-participants This article has been put together as part of an evaluation of the performance test tools NeoLoad and…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise67
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
I have mentioned many advantages about this product, but to discuss disadvantages or areas that could be improved, I would need to consult with my engineers who are working on it. So far I have not...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
I work only with the performance testing tools and not with OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) for mobile and web applications. With performance testing, I am t...
What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
I can provide additional advice after consulting with my team. I am open to being contacted via email for any clarifications about my review. I rate OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (L...
 

Also Known As

Rational Test Workbench, IBM Rational Performance Tester, IBM Functional Tester, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.
JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) and other solutions. Updated: November 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.