IBM Rational Performance Tester vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. IBM is ranked #23, while OpenText is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.1. IBM holds a 1.4% mindshare in TMT, compared to OpenText’s 13.2% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

IBM Rational Performance Te...

Read 17 IBM Rational Performance Tester reviews

124 Views
98 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Read 205 OpenText ALM / Quality Center reviews

2,668 Views
1,124 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

IBM Rational Performance Te...

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

IBM Rational Performance Tester and OpenText ALM/Quality Center are two competing products in the performance testing and quality management space. OpenText ALM/Quality Center tends to be superior due to its extensive features and perceived value despite higher pricing and slightly more complex deployment.

Features: IBM Rational Performance Tester delivers detailed performance testing, real-time reporting, and load testing capabilities. OpenText ALM/Quality Center distinguishes itself with test management, defect tracking, and integration with multiple development tools.

Room for Improvement: IBM Rational Performance Tester could improve its usability, documentation, and customer support. OpenText ALM/Quality Center needs smoother integration with third-party tools, performance optimization, and better ease of use.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM Rational Performance Tester has quicker deployment but inconsistent customer service. OpenText ALM/Quality Center is more complex to deploy but offers consistent and effective customer support.

Pricing and ROI: IBM Rational Performance Tester is cost-effective with quicker ROI due to lower setup costs. OpenText ALM/Quality Center provides greater long-term value despite higher initial costs, with users justifying the expense through extensive functionality and better overall return.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center Report (Updated: October 2024).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

October 2024

Download the complete report

Helped 817,354 peers since 2012

Categories and Ranking

IBM Rational Performance Te...

Ranking in Test Management Tools

23rd

Average Rating

7.6

Number of Reviews

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

7.6

Number of Reviews

205

Ranking in other categories

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Performance Tester is 1.4%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 13.2%, up from 13.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Management Tools

Featured Reviews

it_user323943

Netcool Engineer with 10,001+ employees

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.

Read full review

Aphiwat Leetavorn.

CTO at Marco Technology

Has an initial setup phase that is easy to manage

The tool has some limitations for the dashboard, especially when it comes to 20 or 25 of them, which is sometimes not enough, and one may have to use a custom Excel to help extend the dashboard. The tool needs improvements since it is an old technology. OpenText ALM / Quality Center's improved version is ALM Octane but it does not support some of the traditional parts of the original product. Some of the traditional parts are missing in a lot of areas of OpenText ALM / Quality Center. It is difficult to directly transfer OpenText ALM / Quality Center to ALM Octane. Some of the classic OEMs have limitations, especially when used in an IDE network. There is a need for the tool to check where changes in UI or UX need to be made. The technology used for UI and UX are not user-friendly.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Technical support is very good. I'm very satisfied with the assistance we've received so far."

"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."

"It's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched."

"So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."

"The most valuable features of OpenText ALM include its integration with the automation landscape, the ability to capture requirements and map them to test cases, and the capability to schedule runs through ALM."

"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."

"The execution module and the test planning module are definitely the most valuable features. The rest we use for traceability, but those are the two modules that I cannot live without."

"Integration with other HPE products."

"The test-case repository and linkage through to regression requirements will absolutely be a key component for us. We haven't got it yet, but when we've got an enterprise regression suite, that will be a key deliverable for them. We will be able to have all of the regression suite in one place, linked to the right requirements."

"I love linking/associating the requirements to a test case. That's where I get to know my requirement coverage, which helps a lot at a practical level. So, we use the traceability and visibility features a lot. This helps us to understand if there are any requirements not linked to any test case, thus not getting tested at all. That missing link is always very visible, which helps us to create our requirement traceability matrix and maintain it in a dynamic way. Even with changing requirements, we can keep on changing or updating the tool."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pros

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."

"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."

"The UI is very dated. Most applications these days have a light UI that can be accessed by pretty much any browser; QC still uses a UI which has a look almost the same for the past 20 years."

"Quality Center's UI is outdated, and it's a little bit slow on the login part and different parts of the application. That's why we're switching solutions. I believe most companies are switching to Octane or something else. Micro Focus should enhance the interface and reports."

"The solution is not browser-based, which modern users prefer."

"There are cases where the system does not meet our reporting requirements."

"The extract format is not ideal, splitting expected results into three line items, making interpretation difficult."

"There are cases where the system does not meet our reporting requirements."

"The version of Micro Focus ALM that we use only works through Internet Explorer (IE). We have to communicate to everyone that they can only use IE with the solution. This is a big limitation. We should be free to use any type of browser or operating system. We have customers and partners who are unable to log into the system and enter their defects because they work on a different operating system."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center cons

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."

"Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive."

"It's a perpetual license."

"Only major companies that can afford it use OpenText ALM."

"The solution is priceed high."

"For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."

"I don't know the exact numbers, but I know it is pricey. When we talked to the sales reps we work with from our company, they say, "Well, Micro Focus will never lose on price." So, they are willing to do a lot of negotiating if it is required."

"Compared to the market, the price is high."

"It is very expensive as compared to other tools. We didn't get their premier version. It is a lesser version, and to upgrade, there will be an additional cost for us."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

817,354 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

16%

Government

14%

Manufacturing Company

Educational Organization

63%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

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.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

The cost is a bit high and this could be improved as there are new players with better pricing.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

Costing is an area that needs improvement. It is a bit on the higher side and can be managed better as there are new players with better pricing. Aside from this, there are no other challenges and ...

See all answers

Comparisons

Apache JMeter vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 54% of the time

OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 35% of the time

Tricentis NeoLoad vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 11% of the time

More IBM Rational Performance Tester Competitors

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 24% of the time

OpenText ALM Octane vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 22% of the time

Jira vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 14% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 10% of the time

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Performance Tester

November 2024

Download IBM Rational Performance Tester product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

November 2024

Download OpenText ALM / Quality Center product report

Also Known As

Rational Performance Tester

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM

Learn More

Video not available

IBM

OpenText

Overview

IBM Rational Performance Tester is a performance testing solution that validates the scalability of web and server applications. Rational Performance Tester identifies the presence and cause of system performance bottlenecks and reduces load testing complexity.

OpenText ALM/Quality Center serves as the single pane of glass for software quality management. It helps you govern application lifecycle management activities and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes.

Sample Customers

andagon, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

October 2024

Free Report: IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

817,354 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.

See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.

We monitor all Test Management 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.