IBM Rational Performance Tester vs OpenText Application Quality Management comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. IBM is ranked #24, while OpenText is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.1. IBM holds a 1.4% mindshare in TMT, compared to OpenText’s 12.3% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

IBM Rational Performance Te...

Read 17 IBM Rational Performance Tester reviews

119 Views
56 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Application Qualit...

Read 208 OpenText Application Quality Management reviews

1,778 Views
756 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

IBM Rational Performance Te...

OpenText Application Qualit...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

IBM Rational Performance Tester and OpenText Application Quality Management are direct competitors in the software testing market. IBM is often preferred due to its appealing pricing and robust customer support, while OpenText is favored for its advanced feature set.

Features: IBM Rational Performance Tester is known for its powerful test scripts, automated load testing capabilities, and insightful analytical reports. It supports test cases data pools and logging features, and has extensive protocol support, including HTTP and SAP. OpenText Application Quality Management excels in comprehensive test management, requirements management, and defect tracking, with standout integration capabilities with various automation tools.

Room for Improvement: IBM Rational Performance Tester could enhance its user interface to be more intuitive, improve the flexibility of its resource monitoring options, and offer better integration with third-party tools. OpenText Application Quality Management may benefit from simplifying its setup process, reducing its dependency on initial high investment, and expanding its support for cloud-based deployment strategies.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText offers flexible deployment options including SaaS, on-premise, and hybrid models, supported by a robust customer service team. IBM provides a more straightforward deployment process that is generally easier to handle, with reliable support services that assist users effectively.

Pricing and ROI: IBM Rational Performance Tester is appreciated for its competitive pricing, conducive to a favorable ROI with lower initial costs and efficient testing outcomes. OpenText Application Quality Management, although associated with higher initial costs, justifies these expenses with a comprehensive feature set and extensive management tools that promise significant long-term ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Application Quality Management Report (Updated: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Application Quality Management

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 860,592 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 Application Qualit...

Ranking in Test Management Tools

1st

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

208

Ranking in other categories

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (4th)

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Performance Tester is 1.4%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 12.3%, up from 12.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Management Tools

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil

CEO at Xcelliti

Supports web and mobile applications, very scalable, very stable, and wonderful support

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.

Read full review

Hosney Osman

Senior Operation Engineer at Vodafone

Service provider recognizes effective project tracking and reporting capabilities

Regarding integration with various development tools, I can provide examples, and I am using customizable dashboards in OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, which definitely help identify project bottlenecks. As for the scalability of OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, there are limitations, particularly in agile methodologies, which is currently my main concern.

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 most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."

"Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements."

"The product's initial setup phase is easy."

"It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel, allowing us to download reports easily."

"We were able to manage test cases effectively when we were using it. It worked well for us."

"The tool's most valuable feature is that it is user-friendly, and everybody can learn to use it easily."

"The most valuable Quality Center feature, I find, is the solution's integration with some of our automation tools. For us, the ability to capture and record and the ease of use from a user perspective, are all key."

"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"

More OpenText Application Quality Management pros

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."

"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."

"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."

"The reporting feature could be improved. It would be better if they simplified some things."

"When it came to JIRA and Agile adoption, that was not really easy to do with ALM. I tried, but I was not able to do much on that... There is room for improvement in the way it connects to and handles Agile projects."

"The performance could be faster."

"Currently, what's missing in the solution is the ability for users to see the ongoing scenarios and the status of those scenarios versus the requirements. As for the management tools, they also need to be improved so users can have a better idea of what's going on in just one look, so they can manage testing activities better."

"It is not a scalable solution."

"The product is good, it's great, but when compared to other products with the latest methodologies, or when rating it as a software development tool, then I'll have to rate it with a lower score because there's a lot of other great tools where you can interconnect them, use them, scale them, and leverage. It all depends on the cost."

More OpenText Application Quality Management cons

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 solution is priceed high."

"For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."

"I don't know the exact numbers, but I know it is pricey. When we talked to the sales reps we work with from our company, they say, "Well, Micro Focus will never lose on price." So, they are willing to do a lot of negotiating if it is required."

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive."

"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."

"It's a perpetual license."

"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."

"I feel that the licenses are expensive. "

More OpenText Application Quality Management pricing and cost advice

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

860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

30%

Computer Software Company

16%

Government

14%

Real Estate/Law Firm

Educational Organization

49%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

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 ALM Quality Center?

The most valuable feature is the ST Add-In. It's a Microsoft add-in that makes it much easier to upload test cases into Quality Center.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

The on-premises setup tends to be on the expensive side. It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

We work with Jira now, and there are some very good workflows. There could be more configurable workflows regarding test case creation approval. I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the mar...

See all answers

Comparisons

Apache JMeter vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 57% of the time

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 26% of the time

Tricentis NeoLoad vs IBM Rational Performance Tester

Compared 18% of the time

More IBM Rational Performance Tester Competitors

OpenText Software Delivery Management vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 19% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 17% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 14% of the time

Jira vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 13% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Application Quality Management Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Performance Tester

June 2025

Download IBM Rational Performance Tester product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Application Quality Management

June 2025

OpenText Application Quality Management report

Download OpenText Application Quality Management product report

Also Known As

Rational Performance Tester

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM

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

OpenText Application Quality Management offers extensive capabilities in test management, automation tool integration, and defect traceability, providing an efficient and user-friendly experience for tracking and managing testing workflows.

The platform supports test management by integrating with automation tools and managing the traceability of defects and requirements. It facilitates users with linking test cases to defects, uploading from Excel, and generating customizable reports, which enhances efficiency. Business Process Testing and requirement capturing for test cases further extend its capabilities. Users report concerns about its integration with other tools, particularly in DevOps and agile frameworks, as well as challenges with its complex interface and high cost. Improved integration, better browser compatibility, upgraded dashboards, and enhanced support for agile methodologies are recommended by many users.

What are the most important features of OpenText Application Quality Management?

Integration with Automation Tools: Facilitates seamless testing through integration.
Test Management: Centralized management of test scenarios and cycles.
Defect Traceability: Links defects with test cases for comprehensive tracking.
Excel Uploads: Allows users to import data directly from spreadsheets.
Customizable Reports: Offers tailored reporting capabilities to suit user needs.
Business Process Testing: Supports streamlined testing of business processes.
Requirement Capturing: Efficiently captures and maps test case requirements.

What benefits or ROI can users expect?

Efficiency: Increases speed and accuracy in managing test processes.
Comprehensive Tracking: Provides a thorough view of test and defect linkages.
User-Friendly Interface: Enhances ease of use and reduces complexity.
Improved Testing Accuracy: Facilitates better detection and management of defects.
Cost-Effectiveness: Balances functionality with investment value.

In industries such as finance, healthcare, and technology, organizations apply OpenText Application Quality Management for test management, planning, and automation. It is an essential tool for managing test scenarios, recording results, and supporting both manual and automated testing processes. This tool aids in regression testing, ensuring requirement traceability and acting as a repository for executing test cycles, thereby supporting robust quality assurance practices.

OpenText

Sample Customers

andagon, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Application Quality Management

June 2025

Free Report: IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Application Quality Management

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Application Quality Management and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Application Quality Management 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.