Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

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

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 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 Rational Test Workbench
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
19th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (15th), Test Automation Tools (28th)
OpenText Professional Perfo...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 2.1%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is 12.7%, down from 12.9% 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)12.7%
IBM Rational Test Workbench2.1%
Other85.2%
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

"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."
"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"Using service virtualization, we are able to accelerate the testing and development activity."
"This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."
"LoadRunner has easy usability right now, and it's pretty much documented on the features, and has a how-to-do use of videos, learning materials."
"The ability to do multithreading. That's available in any performance testing tool, but the number of protocols that this particular tool supports has been very good."
"I've always been impressed by the versatility and plain power of this testing tool."
"It uses high-level languages like Java, CVC, and CCL."
"The solution supports a lot of protocols."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"Scaling is definitely one of the best features of this solution. There are no issues scaling to 10,000 or 20,000 concurrent users."
 

Cons

"Rational Performance Tester supports cloud technology in the version 8.7, playing test scripts back on the cloud is not stable."
"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."
"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."
"If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help."
"Network monitoring."
"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"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."
"If the support of the protocols was the same throughout the other protocols and it was there evenly, then I would rate the product higher."
"Licensing costs could be reduced."
"I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients."
"We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market."
 

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."
"The cost depends greatly on the needs of the testing engagement."
"The price is a bit on the high side, but it is still affordable."
"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."
"The licensing model is complex. You have to pick up the protocol and the number of concurrent users, and then select the level of concurrent users. For example, there would be one price for 100 to 500 users and another for 500 to 2000 users. If you choose two protocols, then you will have to pay twice the amount depending on the number of concurrent users."
"The solution's pricing is expensive."
"I would rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten."
"I don't know the licensing cost, but I think that you would get a discount for normal usage. I think there are different yearly options for different types of usage. It is not only how many users, but also whether it is shareable or not and other criteria involved in each feature. There are additional fees for the users and hardware linked to the processing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
884,873 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
Financial Services Firm
28%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Non Profit
8%
University
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Government
6%
Healthcare Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise66
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
When designing a workload model offers a good range of possibilities for creating goal-oriented scenarios, which helps us understand and meet SLAs.
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...
 

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: March 2026.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.