IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise comparison

"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."

"This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."

"The initial setup was straightforward. I was able to download everything myself without any IT support."

"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to use and has flexibility that allows it to be used on a variety of applications."

"For me, LoadRunner stands out, especially with its reporting capabilities, the graphs that can be generated, and the unique feature of measuring our application's response alongside our infrastructure metrics, such as CPU, memory, or disk usage, all presented in graph form. This is something other applications struggle to match."

"It is mostly user-friendly and usable."

"It is also good for reporting purposes, which would be most familiar for QC and UFT users."

"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 allows for quick comparison of monitoring and performance results, a feature I highly appreciate."

"Creating the script is very easy and user friendly."

"The most beneficial features of the solution are flexibility and versatility in their performance."

"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."

"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."

"More real-time monitoring should be available for the system under test."

"Offering a direct integration feature would ensure a completely smooth experience."

"I'd rate the scalability a six out of ten. The main reason is that it's a very expensive application. Other companies might not be able to afford it. For example, if we need to test an application with 10,000 concurrent users, the license can cost a lot of money. That's where OpenText tools shoot themselves in the foot compared to other tools. Because of the price, many companies, like one I used to work for, decided not to renew their licenses and switched to open-source testing tools."

"The support team needs to be more coordinated."

"The solution is a very expensive tool when compared with other tools."

"The product's scalability must be improved."

"The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved."

"Lacks the option of carrying out transaction comparisons."

"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."

"The price is a bit too high."

"We used the Professional version and then moved to the enterprise version. We have subscribed to 1000 user licenses. The tool will be super expensive if we take up 5,000 user licenses. We have to limit ourselves on testing."

"LoadRunner Enterprise's price is high."

"We got a very good deal. We are happy with that. We have 5,000 licenses."

"For Performance Center, you have to add additional load generators, and then you can do more. I think it is a matter of the price, in terms of how many machines you can buy."

"The price of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise could improve, it is expensive."

"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."

"It is a bit expensive, especially for smaller organizations, but over-all it can save you money."