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

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

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 Performance Te...
Ranking in Test Management Tools
24th
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Ranking in Test Management Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
207
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Performance Tester is 1.5%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 13.6%, up from 12.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

it_user323943 - PeerSpot reviewer
We can edit captured transactions and organize them by those for which we require performance metrics, but it lacks a set of manuals or guides that would take out some guess work.
It is used to capture and generate HTTP tests. The capture process is very easy. After this, we edited the captured transactions to organize them into the sections or transactions we require performance metrics for (i.e. splash page, user authentication, main pageload, logout, etc.). This editing process is easy to perform with the interface provided in Rational Performance Tester Finally, Rational Performance Tester has an import/export feature that has been extremely useful. We have used it to export our complete test library and import it into another Rational Performance Tester server with no loss or issues. This allows for platform test migrations and backup.
Paul Grossman - PeerSpot reviewer
Range of supported technology expands, but odd IDE design still leave newbies and pro users alike disappointed.
There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed. While I have a larger list of issues that make day to day work harder than it needs to be, these are the Top Five that I do wish would capture someone's attention in upcoming releases. All hit the tool's ROI pretty hard. #1) Jump To Source - The Silent Code Killer: In older QTP versions a double-click on any function in the Toolbox window would take the developer to the function's source code, while a drag from the Toolbox would add it to the code window. Since 12.0 a double-click on a function in UFT's Toolbox window now ADDS the function (same as drag) to the Code window - to whatever random location the cursor happens to be at - even if it is off screen, and it will replace sections of code if it is highlighted. We are not sure what the intention was, but our Best Practice is to avoid the Toolbox window entirely to avoid the real danger of losing days of work and needless bug hunts. Now Jump to Source is not all bad. A right-click on any function called from a Script takes us to the code source, which is great! But it only half works: in a Library, only for functions declared within the same library. Our advance designs have well over twelve libs so a whole lot of extra time is spent searching the entire project for a function's source on a daily basis. Lastly, while we can add custom methods to object, a Jump To Source from these methods is long overdue. So again our only option is to search the entire project. #2) Object Spy: It needs to have multiple instances so that you can compare multiple object properties side-by-side. It lacks a Refresh button, so that automation engineers can quickly identify the property changes of visible and invisible objects. Or HP could skip to option #3... #3) Add RegEx integer support for .Height or .Width object properties when retrieving object collections. If this were possible, our framework could return collections that contain only visible objects that have a .height property greater that zero. (Side Note: the .Visible property has not returned a False value for us in nearly five years - a recent developer decision, not a product issue) Eliminating the need to separate the non-visible objects from visible ones would decrease execution time dramatically. (Another side note: Our experiments to RegEx integer-based .Height properties found that we could get a collection of just invisible objects. Exactly the opposite of what we needed.) #4) The shortcut to a treasure trove of sample code in the latest release 14.0 has been inexplicably removed. This impeeds new users from having an easy time learning the tool's advanced capability. In fact the only users daring enough to go find it now will be you who is reading this review. #5) Forced Return to Script Code. This again is a no-brainer design flaw. Let's say we run a script and throw an error somewhere deep in our function library. Hey it happens. In prior QTP versions when the Stop button would be clicked the tool would leave you right there at the point where the error occurred to fix. Now in recent releases, UFT always takes us back to the main Script, far from that code area that needed immediate attention.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It can support both web applications and mobile applications, and in certain cases, it can also support testing of desktop applications or software-based applications. You can write web applications, mobile applications, and software-based applications."
"Technical support is very good. I'm very satisfied with the assistance we've received so far."
"The stability is very good."
"ALM is a well-known product and is one of the pioneers in providing test management facilities with a 360 degree view of requirements."
"We were able to manage test cases effectively when we were using it. It worked well for us."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"You can maintain your test cases and requirements. You can also log the defects in it and make the traceability metrics out of it. There are all sorts of things you can do in this. It is not that complex to use. In terms of user experience, it is very simple to adopt. It is a good product."
"The enhanced dashboards capabilities are useful for senior management to view the progress of releases under the portfolio in one go and also drill down to the graphs."
"It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel, allowing us to download reports easily."
 

Cons

"There are some features that Micro Focus LoadRunner provides, but they are not available in IBM Rational Performance Tester. They should include such features. It can also have more reports similar to what HP provides. It might also need some improvement in terms of the tools and support for other technology areas. Certain technologies are not supported by every tool. They need to support all sorts of technologies and platforms on which web applications and mobile applications are built. They need complete support for all sorts of technologies."
"The solution is not easily scalable. If you want to extend the solution, you need to purchase a different kind of license. You also have to work with the IBM team to assist in scaling."
"We are looking for more automation capabilities."
"I'd like to be able to improve how our QA department uses the tool, by getting better educational resources, documentation to help with competencies for my testers."
"There are great features, however, transitioning between partners and managing a large number of test cases can be time-consuming."
"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"
"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"It is pricey."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is much cheaper than Micro Focus LoadRunner. We need perpetual licenses. Support is included in the first sale. After that, you need to renew support every year."
"The licensing fee is a little expensive."
"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
"It all comes down to how many people are going to access the tool. When teams go above 20, I think ALM is a better tool to use from a collaboration and streamlining perspective."
"Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive."
"I'd rate the pricing as 3/10 as it's very expensive."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive."
"For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."
"The cost of licensing depends on the number of VMs that you are running test cases on and it is not cheap."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
18%
Government
11%
Educational Organization
7%
Educational Organization
66%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
The most valuable feature is the ST Add-In. It's a Microsoft add-in that makes it much easier to upload test cases into Quality Center.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
The on-premises setup tends to be on the expensive side. It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
We work with Jira now, and there are some very good workflows. There could be more configurable workflows regarding test case creation approval. I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the mar...
 

Also Known As

Rational Performance Tester
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

andagon, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.