We performed a comparison between IBM Engineering Test Management and OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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."The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"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."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"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."
"It's fast, easy to use, has a user-friendly UI, and you can split users."
"Keeping up with DevOps, thus the best feature of StormRunner is that we don't have to build and maintain infrastructure anymore."
"The most valuable feature is that we do not have to accommodate the load-testing infrastructure in our own data center."
"One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols."
"The usability and ability to integrate with other solutions is quite good. When I use it in on Azure, then Red Hat is the most likely solution I use. When I use AWS, then I tend to use Lambda functions. In either case, it works well and you can use it either way."
"The fact that the solution supports multiple protocols such as open source, VuGen, TruWeb, TruClient, and SAP is very important because these protocols help us to concentrate on what is really needed to produce performance tests. If something is not supported, you have to use other tools or find other ways of assimilating loads."
"It's a fast product, so you don't have much trouble in terms of maintenance overhead. You don't want to just look into configuring load generators, look for upgrades, and end up having that take up a lot of your time. With this solution, you just log in and you start using it. This means that there is a huge benefit in terms of the overhead of maintaining the infrastructure and the maintenance effort."
"The product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"We encounter hurdles while running the professional version for on-premise setup."
"CI/CD integration could be a little bit better. When there's a test and if you see that there are high response times in the test itself, it would be great to be able to send an alert. It would give a heads-up to the architect community or ops community."
"There is a steep learning curve for the product, too."
"In terms of new features, they can natively integrate with Chaos engineering tools such as Chaos Monkey and AWS FIS. With LoadRunner, we can generate load, and if Chaos tools are also supported natively, it will help to get everything together."
"The product must provide agents to monitor servers."
"One area for improvement in LoadRunner Cloud, especially for agile models, is its limited support for functional testing alongside its robust non-functional testing capabilities."
"It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need."
"Its scripting features need improvement."
More IBM Engineering Test Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Engineering Test Management is ranked 15th in Load Testing Tools with 11 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Load Testing Tools with 39 reviews. IBM Engineering Test Management is rated 7.6, while OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM Engineering Test Management writes "Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud writes "Supports multiple protocols and helps to ensure that our applications are stable at any given point". IBM Engineering Test Management is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter and Apache JMeter. See our IBM Engineering Test Management vs. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud report.
See our list of best Load 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.