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 13.5% 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

110 Views
86 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Read 205 OpenText ALM / Quality Center reviews

2,561 Views
1,055 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: December 2024).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

December 2024

Download the complete report

Helped 825,661 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

6.6

Number of Reviews

205

Ranking in other categories

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, 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 13.5%, up from 12.8% 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."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies."

"It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel, allowing us to download reports easily."

"The integration with UFT is nice."

"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."

"Most of the features that I like the best are more on the analytics side."

"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."

"The AI and functionality interface are useful."

"It's user friendly, scalable, and very stable and strong. It's cooperative, meaning that I can assess the test to check it and follow the flow of defects, and the developers and the business can use this tool to follow the test process."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pros

Cons

"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."

"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."

"Requirements management could be improved as the use is very limited. E.g., they have always stated that, "You can monitor and create requirements," but it has its limitations. That's why companies will choose another requirements management solution and import data from that source system into Quality Center. Micro Focus has also invested in an adapter between Dimensions RM and ALM via Micro Focus Connect. However, I see room for improvements in this rather outdated tool. I feel what Micro Focus did is say, "Our strategy is not to improve these parts within the tool itself, but search for supported integrations within our own tool set." This has not been helpful."

"When it came to JIRA and Agile adoption, that was not really easy to do with ALM. I tried, but I was not able to do much on that... There is room for improvement in the way it connects to and handles Agile projects."

"An area for improvement in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is not being able to update the Excel sheet where I wrote the test cases. Whenever I update some test cases, I'm unsuccessful because there is overlapping data or missing cases from the sheet."

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

"The QA needs improvement."

"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."

"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."

"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."

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."

"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."

"It's a perpetual license."

"HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models."

"Pricing is managed by our headquarters. I am able to get from them for very cheap. The market price is horribly expensive."

"Pricing could be improved as it's high-priced. I don't exactly know the pricing point, but previously, I know that it was really high so less people were able to use it for their projects."

"The solution has the ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment with the correct license."

"Sure, HP UFT is not free. But consider what you get for that cost: A stable product that is easy to use; the kitchen sink of technology stack support; decades of code (which in many cases actually is free); a version that is a stepping stone to an easier Selenium design; and a support base that is more that just the kindness of strangers."

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

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

825,661 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

17%

Government

15%

Energy/Utilities Company

Educational Organization

64%

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 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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

The extract format is not ideal, splitting expected results into three line items, making interpretation difficult. Issues with mapping multiple functional test cases to one automated test case nee...

See all answers

Comparisons

Apache JMeter vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 55% of the time

OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 32% of the time

Tricentis NeoLoad vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 13% 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 11% 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

December 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

December 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: December 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

825,661 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.