IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText LoadRunner Professional comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Rational Test Workbench
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
18th
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (12th), Test Automation Tools (36th)
OpenText LoadRunner Profess...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
77
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Market share comparison

As of June 2024, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the market share of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 0.2% and it decreased by 60.4% compared to the previous year. The market share of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is 10.6% and it decreased by 41.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools
Unique Categories:
API Testing Tools
0.5%
Load Testing Tools
8.9%
 

Featured Reviews

JP
Mar 14, 2021
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.
SamirPatle - PeerSpot reviewer
Apr 18, 2024
Compatibility with C and JavaScript enhances its integration with other tools and offers goal-oriented scenario within the workload model
Many times, the scripts are very lengthy, and traffic recording is tough. We're dealing with a huge chunk of data to record the traffic, and what happens is that LoadRunner takes a lot of time post-script validation to create its script after recording traffic from Ruckus. Sometimes, it gets hung because of the high resource utilization, and we have to re-record again if the requests are huge. So, LoadRunner experiences high resource utilization. Even though we have machines with higher configurations, I've observed this behavior. Heavy traffic recording results in the tool hanging. So heavy traffic recording makes the tool slow. To prepare a script, OpenText LoadRunner Professional slows down.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"LoadRunner is a very systematic tool for anyone to use. Even someone who is actually a first time user of LoadRunner can actually get a lot of benefit out of the tool."
"The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it."
"It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system."
"The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs."
"Its variety of testing tools for different applications is of great benefit, as well as its integration capabilities with other testing and monitoring solutions."
"I am impressed with the tool's correlation function."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"There's a reporting part of the cloud that could be improved a little bit."
"The tool needs to work on capture script feature."
"The solution is very costly. The cost is very high, especially considering a lot of other resources are available now and they are less expensive. For a small organization, it is very difficult to sustain the costs involved in having the solution or the related fees"
"The initial start-up of Micro Focus LoadRunner could be improved. When we add 20 or 30 scripts, the refresh is completed one by one. I would like to be able to select all the script at one time, so it can be completed in a single click, reducing the time required."
"Support for Microsoft Dynamics needs improvement."
"Micro Focus has two separate products for web and mobile applications, which means you have to invest in both."
"There is room for improvement of the pilot processing, the dump analysis, and forwarding results based on the dump analysis. We have a generator, root controller, different agents, and an analyzer, so all of these are very important when it comes to LoadRunner."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high-quality technical support, I rate the support a one."
 

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."
"This is not a cheap product."
"I would still consider LoadRunner as an expensive tool and you get a LoadRunner and the Performance Center."
"The solution's pricing is expensive."
"For licensing, we pay a lot for it. But the incentive is the support we get with it, that we pay once, and we are set."
"The pricing model, especially when involving partners, could use some improvement."
"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."
"LoadRunner Professional is an expensive product."
"The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
787,061 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
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
19%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Government
12%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
It is on the higher side when compared with other tools, but given the suite or package it provides, it is a fair price.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
Many times, the scripts are very lengthy, and traffic recording is tough. We're dealing with a huge chunk of data to record the traffic, and what happens is that LoadRunner takes a lot of time post...
 

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
 

Learn More

 

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 LoadRunner Professional and other solutions. Updated: May 2024.
787,061 professionals have used our research since 2012.