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

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 13, 2025

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 Test Workbench
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
19th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (13th), Test Automation Tools (36th)
OpenText Enterprise Perform...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
83
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 0.5%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is 5.6%, down from 7.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1513668 - PeerSpot reviewer
Good reporting and interface, but supports limited types of protocols and requires low-level script editing
It should have more interfaces. In terms of interfaces or protocols, what you can do with Rational is far limited as compared to other products out there. What it does, it does great, but it only gives you limited types of protocols. It supports between 8 to 15 types of protocols, whereas other test tools give you 20 to 30 types of protocols with which you can do testing and convert to script. It records Javascript-based scripts, and you got to know a little bit of Java to basically be able to edit them, but the level of editing you got to do is very low. I like that, but the ability to edit the script is not as good as Parasoft or LoadRunner, which have C-Script.
VictorHorescu - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to test almost every tool in the companies I enter and performs well in a distributed environment
It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems. In real time, when they ask for 5,000 or 10,000 concurrent users, I have to provision a lot of virtual machines to define this load. Then there are situations with certain platforms, especially document management platforms, where the technology is so weird that normal LoadRunner protocols cannot detect it. So, in that case, I have to use that special TruClient protocol. I have to use the TruClient protocol, which actually clicks on the object. Despite the SQL technology, I can still create a script and test for performance. So what I would appreciate a lot is if this protocol would require less resources on a normal virtual machine. I can use fewer concurrent users with TruClient protocols as opposed to almost one hundred with HTTP/HTML. As opposed to many more with HTTP/HTML from, let's say, JMeter. So, optimization at that level for resource consumption by OpenText would be much appreciated.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."
"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"With Performance Center, the version upgrade is easy. You just have to roll out the new patch or the new version."
"Provides the performance of load test applications and reliably on good reporting."
"It offers easy integration with third-party tools like Dynatrace, Splunk, etc."
"The solution supports a number of protocols."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise supports a lot of technologies. The existing performance testing that this tool is capable of is good. The protocols that are available are widely varied when compared to other performance testing tools."
"The fact that you can have tens of thousands of virtual users and just expand an army of load generators to hammer on whatever application you're testing."
"The solution is a very user-friendly tool, especially when you compare it to a competitor like BlazeMeter."
"The solution offers helpful guidelines and has good documentation."
 

Cons

"It should have more interfaces. In terms of interfaces or protocols, what you can do with Rational is far limited as compared to other products out there. What it does, it does great, but it only gives you limited types of protocols. It supports between 8 to 15 types of protocols, whereas other test tools give you 20 to 30 types of protocols with which you can do testing and convert to script. It records Javascript-based scripts, and you got to know a little bit of Java to basically be able to edit them, but the level of editing you got to do is very low. I like that, but the ability to edit the script is not as good as Parasoft or LoadRunner, which have C-Script."
"There are a number of things that they can do to simplify the tools, but the most important thing that they need to do is simplify the installation."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise doesn't support some mainframe protocols. We had to build scripts to access the interface."
"Dashboard creation should be implemented, so we can get the results in a desired format."
"The process of upgrading LoadRunner can be difficult and time-consuming."
"Integration can be tricky during the setup process."
"I believe the data that demonstrates the automated correlations should be corrected."
"Canned reports are always a challenge and a question with customers because customers want to see sexy reports."
"The worst thing about it is it did not have zero footprint on your PC."
"The installation has not been straightforward, and we have had so many problems. We have had to re-install, try to install on a different machine, etc. We have not been able to launch the LRE server itself yet."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It doesn't really concern me. Licensing is on a yearly basis."
"The pricing is a little bit on the higher side, although it is really good."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's price is high."
"The tool is very expensive."
"It is a bit expensive when compared with other tools."
"The prices would differ depending on the number of licenses you need. I wouldn't maybe compare it to any other tools. I rate the price as seven out of ten."
"We purchased the license via SAP."
"I have not been directly involved in price negotiations but my understanding is that while the cost is a little bit high, it provides good value for the money."
"It is a bit expensive, especially for smaller organizations, but over-all it can save you money."
"The price is okay. You're able to buy it, as opposed to paying for a full year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
842,651 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
31%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
Now that LoadRunner integrates with Dynatrace and other monitoring tools, it simplifies the process of integration into a company, taking merely five minutes to set up. This ease of integration a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
In 2019, I was dealing with the costs of LoadRunner. While I don't remember the exact figures, JMeter being free and RPT being cheaper makes them attractive. The high cost of LoadRunner, in contras...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
While I don't see any issues with LoadRunner's functionality, the cost of the tool is a major factor. Many of my customers have had to switch to different tools due to the cost of LoadRunner, despi...
 

Also Known As

Rational Test Workbench, IBM Rational Performance Tester, IBM Functional Tester, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server
Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.
Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
842,651 professionals have used our research since 2012.