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

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

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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...
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (15th)
OpenText Professional Perfo...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (2nd), Load Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. IBM Rational Performance Tester is designed for Test Management Tools and holds a mindshare of 3.4%, up 1.2% compared to last year.
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional), on the other hand, focuses on Performance Testing Tools, holds 13.6% mindshare, up 13.5% since last year.
Test Management Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM Rational Performance Tester3.4%
OpenText Application Quality Management9.4%
TestRail6.3%
Other80.9%
Test Management Tools
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)13.6%
Tricentis NeoLoad10.7%
Apache JMeter10.4%
Other65.30000000000001%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
SD
Assistant Consultant at Tata Consultancy
Experience a decade of seamless performance with robust support
I would like to improve OpenText LoadRunner Professional based on what we discussed in our last discussion, as those points remain similar and applicable. For future updates, I would like to see the same features that people generally prefer. I find that AI functionality in OpenText LoadRunner Professional should be improved and more accessible; if we get a chance to work with that, then we can check how much it helps.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The setup was straightforward, it depends on the company's regulations and infrastructure policies."
"Technical support is very good. I'm very satisfied with the assistance we've received so far."
"Customization and extensions made in Java is valuable because this can help you set elements to improve your results."
"It's one of the most cost-effective products on the market."
"Helped in improving response times in a few of our transactions."
"ROI is big because we do not need vendors to assist some with performance testing."
"Comprehensive Rational Performance Tester results allow testers to identify bottlenecks in the systems under test."
"I strongly recommend this solution to others."
"It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it."
"A very comprehensive tool that is good for performance testing."
"I've always been impressed by the versatility and plain power of this testing tool."
"The solution supports a lot of protocols."
"The solution is quite stable."
"Very useful for finding out how the system responds to load, stress, and normal situations, as well as benchmarking with other industry competitors, it also improved our response time, memory delegation, and CPU delegation, and we used LoadRunner to optimize our database and website."
"The analysis capability is simply best of breed as it allows you to take data from any source and correlate it with your results."
"LoadRunner Professional allowed us to load test potential new payroll solutions that would be implemented throughout the entire organization so that we knew which was best suited to performing well under pressure."
 

Cons

"As intuitive as a product can be, its use could still benefit from a decent set of manuals or guides."
"Installation and configuration processes, and support from IBM all need to be improved."
"There are some features that Micro Focus LoadRunner provides, but they are not available in IBM Rational Performance Tester."
"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 tool has lots of limitations."
"For a rational performance testing solution, the initial setup is very complex. The setup was difficult and the documentation was not very up to date."
"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."
"Now, the price slightly expensive especially if you are in small-medium company, but if you are in a medium-high company, and need the powerful tools with IBM great name, just use it."
"Pricing is the only thing which make people think many times before purchasing this product."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help."
"Sometimes, we aren't able to see an accurate page view while replying and executing the script."
"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"The license cost is much more compared to other tools available, but it will give you a complete package for load testing your application."
"There should be more integration with more open-source platforms."
"In terms of improvement, it lacks mobile testing features present in some competitors, like GitMatters, which I find valuable."
 

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's pricing is expensive."
"There is an annual license required to use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional. There are not any additional costs other than the licensing fees to use it."
"I don't know the licensing cost, but I think that you would get a discount for normal usage. I think there are different yearly options for different types of usage. It is not only how many users, but also whether it is shareable or not and other criteria involved in each feature. There are additional fees for the users and hardware linked to the processing."
"LoadRunner is more expensive than some competing products."
"There is a licensing cost that is expensive."
"When you compare the cost of other tools such as NeoLoad and LoadNinja, the cost of LoadRunner is on the expensive side. As a result, we are currently considering going with NeoLoad."
"LoadRunner Professional's licensing costs are on the higher side, apart from the Community Edition."
"I would still consider LoadRunner as an expensive tool and you get a LoadRunner and the Performance Center."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Penetration and Neoload Tester at a university with 501-1,000 employees
Apr 13, 2014
LoadRunner vs NeoLoad
The six phases of an IT project Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent (the performance tester) Praise and rewards for the incompetent non-participants This article has been put together as part of an evaluation of the performance test tools NeoLoad and…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Construction Company
7%
Government
7%
Healthcare Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Construction Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise8
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise66
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
When designing a workload model offers a good range of possibilities for creating goal-oriented scenarios, which helps us understand and meet SLAs.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
I have mentioned many advantages about this product, but to discuss disadvantages or areas that could be improved, I would need to consult with my engineers who are working on it. So far I have not...
 

Also Known As

Rational Performance Tester
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

andagon, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon
JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, IDERA, UiPath and others in Test Management Tools. Updated: April 2026.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.