No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

IBM Engineering Test Management vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 6, 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 Engineering Test Manage...
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
15th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (13th)
Telerik Test Studio
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (23rd), Regression Testing Tools (13th), Test Automation Tools (22nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Engineering Test Management is 2.6%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 2.6%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Telerik Test Studio2.6%
IBM Engineering Test Management2.6%
Other94.8%
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HZ
Lead Systems Tester at Government of Ontario, Canada
Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team
IBM Rational has the RFT, which is rational functional testing. We do test automation with rational functional testing. So after we do that, we can put in all the code, then I can build it, then put all the test cases, and put all the build code for the shared location. And then rational that shared location means that RQM has access to the shared location. So, when we execute, if a test case is automated, we can run it from RQM. We need to have the environment ready for it to execute. Once we have that, then we can select the task case. So, by clicking on one button, the other environment is automatically plugged in. Then test results will be automatically transferred back to our RQM. So, in RQM, we can view it, and it is integrated. So we can run the test and the automation from RQM, and the test results will come back. Azure DevOps first test case is there, but then we tried to use Selenium to do half automation. Still, we realized that it wouldn't have the integration. We could do something in the pipeline, but it fires the Selenium test automation code. But then the test results won't be brought back or added to AzureDesk DevOps. That's something that I do hope that there can be another other system that can have this kind of integration. RQM can be improved because it's not related to our server and could be faster. We need to find out how much database storage is needed and keep increasing it. We heard that the latest version of RQM can clean up some old ones and give the same test result. But that one feature we are yet to use. It's a setting that we can set up, and then it goes automatically or gives me the choice to do it manually.
Raghvendra Jyothi - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager Project Management at Capgemini
Very good performance and load testing capabilities
There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need, and it has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"Project realization has been carried out much faster."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"The technical support has been pretty good."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"The object repository is the most valuable feature, as different elements can be identified and reutilized through the repository across other scripts, and the product has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
 

Cons

"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"Support of parameter needs to be easier."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"The user interface can be improved; it is the same interface that I have been seeing for the past so many years, whereas the other CLM modules changed significantly."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"The first time I customized the solution, it was quite challenging."
"We have not seen a return on investment yet."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licenses of these tools (the whole CLM package) is very costly as compared to other vendors' tools."
"Each license includes 12 months of customer support. A free 90-day trial of the software is also available."
"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Healthcare Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
University
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise7
No data available
 

Also Known As

IBM Rational Quality Manager, Rational Quality Manager
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Ehrhardt, Cisco Systems, Anadolu Hayat Emeklilik, CareCore National, ItaÒ BBA, Barr
Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Engineering Test Management vs. Telerik Test Studio and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.