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

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs OpenText LoadRunner Professional comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Rational Performance Te...
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (23rd)
OpenText LoadRunner Profess...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
80
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (3rd), Load Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. IBM Rational Performance Tester is designed for Test Management Tools and holds a mindshare of 1.4%, up 1.0% compared to last year.
OpenText LoadRunner Professional, on the other hand, focuses on Performance Testing Tools, holds 13.0% mindshare, down 15.4% since last year.
Test Management Tools
Performance Testing 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.
HelenSague - PeerSpot reviewer
A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications
I do not have any big challenges with LoadRunner. I only have some issues with load generators. It is a very common issue, and I hope it will be resolved in the latest release. For example, when we start to run our tests, users get the message that the load generator exceeded 80% of the CPU utilization. Even when the number of users is less, we get these messages. I am trying to resolve it, but it is not going. It is annoying. It is not a failure, but I hope that it will be resolved. IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on.

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 solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs."
"The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"The most valuable feature depends on what we're doing at the time. In the past, the greatest feature was the ability to record and play back to produce a script. Another great feature is that we can monitor the system. They also support many protocols to perform load testing."
"Graph monitoring is a valuable feature."
"There are various languages that they allow those programs to be written in, whether you want to use Java or something else."
"The stability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is very high. It is the leading tool for stability."
"It uses high-level languages like Java, CVC, and CCL."
 

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."
"I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator."
"Support for Microsoft Dynamics needs improvement."
"The only scenario we see a complexity is when we have single-page applications where JavaScript is talking to the server and coming back. That's the only scenario where we find some difficulties."
"Licensing costs could be reduced."
"The pricing model, selling model, and business model need to be adjusted. For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost."
"I also use the TrueClient feature for browser-based testing. I found the TrueClient feature to be a bit difficult to use and not very user-friendly for automating scripts."
"If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help."
"Sometimes when we were migrating from one version to another, some of our scripts started failing."
 

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."
"When you compare the cost of other tools such as NeoLoad and LoadNinja, the cost of LoadRunner is on the expensive side. As a result, we are currently considering going with NeoLoad."
"I would rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten."
"This is not a cheap product."
"The pricing model and the software licensing model could be better."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise's pricing is reasonable."
"I would still consider LoadRunner as an expensive tool and you get a LoadRunner and the Performance Center."
"It is competing with other products that may cost significantly less or may be available as open-source. Because of that it is relatively expensive."
"I don't know the licensing cost, but I think that you would get a discount for normal usage. I think there are different yearly options for different types of usage. It is not only how many users, but also whether it is shareable or not and other criteria involved in each feature. There are additional fees for the users and hardware linked to the processing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
829,541 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
22%
Computer Software Company
17%
Government
15%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
 

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 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 needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
Technical support needs to be faster, and the pricing should be more competitive. The virtual table server feature should be reintroduced. Some AI capabilities should be added. There should be an '...
 

Also Known As

Rational Performance Tester
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

andagon, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon
JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, IDERA, Microsoft and others in Test Management Tools. Updated: December 2024.
829,541 professionals have used our research since 2012.