IBM Rational Performance Tester vs OpenText Silk Central comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. IBM is ranked #24, while OpenText is ranked #22. IBM holds a 1.4% mindshare in TMT, compared to OpenText’s 1.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 80% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

IBM Rational Performance Te...

Read 17 IBM Rational Performance Tester reviews

110 Views
84 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Central

Read 9 OpenText Silk Central reviews

252 Views
116 Comparison Views

80% willing to recommend

IBM Rational Performance Te...

OpenText Silk Central

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

The comparison between IBM Rational Performance Tester and OpenText Silk Central reveals various strengths and weaknesses for each product. Users are generally happier with the support and deployment ease of IBM Rational Performance Tester. However, OpenText Silk Central is favored for its features, which users perceive as worth the price despite higher costs.

Features: IBM Rational Performance Tester is admired for its robust performance testing capabilities and integration with other IBM tools. OpenText Silk Central is preferred for its comprehensive test management features and integration with various third-party tools. Users prefer the extensive feature set of OpenText Silk Central.

Room for Improvement: IBM Rational Performance Tester needs improvements in its reporting capabilities and learning curve. Users of OpenText Silk Central suggest enhancements in usability and the need for more comprehensive documentation. IBM Rational Performance Tester's areas of improvement seem more critical to users.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM Rational Performance Tester is praised for its straightforward deployment process and excellent customer support. OpenText Silk Central also receives positive feedback for deployment but has slightly less favorable reviews concerning customer service. Users find IBM Rational Performance Tester easier to deploy and support more responsive.

Pricing and ROI: IBM Rational Performance Tester offers competitive pricing and satisfactory ROI, according to user reviews. OpenText Silk Central is perceived as more expensive but delivers substantial value that justifies the cost. IBM Rational Performance Tester is appreciated for cost-effectiveness, while the value derived from OpenText Silk Central's features leads many users to view it as a worthy investment.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Silk Central Report (Updated: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Silk Central

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 845,406 peers since 2012

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

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Silk Central

Ranking in Test Management Tools

22nd

Average Rating

7.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Design Automation (4th)

Mindshare comparison

As of April 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 Silk Central is 1.5%, down from 1.7% 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

it_user685080

Test Governance at Poste Italiane

We have many possibilities to customize the utilization and we can also work easily at database level for custom reporting and to manage additional information and integration.

We manage more than 400 users and 120,000 test cases / year in our Test and Defect Management solution based on Silk Central, in an enterprise multi-company environment (postal, banking, insurance, telco, mobile, government, business), so for us the most valuable feature is flexibility. With Silk Central we have many possibilities for customizing the utilization and we can also work easily at database level for custom reporting and to manage additional information and integration. In addition we have great support from Micro Focus and real collaboration to drive future direction and new features. The other valuable feature is the easy to use and immediate onboarding of manual testers and general users and test managers.

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 stability of this solution is very good. In our experience it is approximately ninety-nine percent."

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."

"We would also like to manage the integration testing end-to-end."

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 cost of this tool, in terms of licensing, is not large."

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

845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

30%

Computer Software Company

20%

Government

13%

Real Estate/Law Firm

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Comparisons

Apache JMeter vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 63% of the time

OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 24% of the time

Tricentis NeoLoad vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 14% of the time

More IBM Rational Performance Tester Competitors

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs OpenText Silk Central

Compared 100% of the time

More OpenText Silk Central Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Performance Tester

March 2025

Download IBM Rational Performance Tester product report

Buyer's Guide

Test Management Tools

March 2025

Download OpenText Silk Central product report

Also Known As

Rational Performance Tester

Micro Focus Silk Central, Borland Silk Central, Silk Central

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.

IBM

Silk Central is an open test management solution which unifies all test assets into one easy-to-use planning, tracking, reporting and execution hub. Silk Central enables you to gain control, collaboration and traceability across all areas of your software testing, whether your methodology is Agile, Traditional or hybrid. Silk Central provides integration of requirements, manual and automated tests, defect tools and your test execution, giving full traceability of the quality of your software testing regardless of role.

OpenText

Sample Customers

andagon, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon

AmBank Group, Krung Thai Computer Services, Deakin University

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Silk Central

March 2025

Free Report: IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Silk Central

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Silk Central and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Silk Central 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.