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

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs OpenText Silk Central comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

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
15th
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Silk Central
Ranking in Test Management Tools
11th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
2.3
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
Test Design Automation (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Performance Tester is 3.4%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Central is 2.9%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Silk Central2.9%
IBM Rational Performance Tester3.4%
Other93.7%
Test Management 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.
ChrisWilliams1 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Test Analyst at Kainga Ora
Reporting efficacy and collaboration improve despite outdated features
I do this for my own benefit, and it has nothing to do with any company views. I work as a permanent employee for a government department. OpenText Silk Central is coming to the end of its support, so we will have to move to something else, but I do not know what the other solution will be. Automation is quite immature at our place. It has only really started, so there is no integration with OpenText Silk Central. I would give it a rating of 7 out of 10; it could be 7.5. It just lacks certain features that would make it a higher grade if it had more modern features.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"This tool is very scalable, and for large scale tests, i.e., 5000 virtual users and up, it performs very well."
"Rational Performance Tester was perfectly suited to provide the means to monitor the availability and performance of our web services."
"Customization and extensions made in Java is valuable because this can help you set elements to improve your results."
"The setup was straightforward, it depends on the company's regulations and infrastructure policies."
"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."
"Technical support is very good. I'm very satisfied with the assistance we've received so far."
"Every Waterfall and Agile project should be using Silk Central."
"This solution adds value because we are able to get the right information at the right time, which helps us to make the right decisions."
"If you are an enterprise site that needs a real customizable test and defect management solution, one that is easy to use and with a good level of out-of-the-box functionality and integration options, Silk Central is a good choice."
"The reporting is probably the most valuable feature."
"The stability of this solution is very good. In our experience it is approximately ninety-nine percent."
"With SilkCentral, I can have a macro-view of all my tests."
"Issues and Defect Management."
"It would certainly be worth the cost, but you need to be committed to using it long term."
 

Cons

"There are some features that Micro Focus LoadRunner provides, but they are not available in IBM Rational Performance Tester."
"I’d like to see a tighter integration with Rational Quality Manager and the Jazz platform."
"We had open many PMRs for problems found in the products, and I'm not sure if all of them have been fixed."
"The tool has lots of limitations."
"The HP tool is overall a little better but much more expensive."
"Sometimes new versions have bugs."
"User friendliness can be better, as this is one area where it lacks."
"The installation and tool setup can take some time, since this involves several components."
"At this point, we feel that the customization is bad."
"Although I once met an issue where I created a test case and deleted it immediately, this test case still existed in the database and was still being included in our execution runs, and I had no idea how to completely remove this unused test case."
"Product does not respond well on virtual machines because of network and memory issues."
"From a test automation perspective, the main feature missing is the ability to schedule executions with only failed tests."
"We would also like to manage the integration testing end-to-end."
"It can be a bit slow sometimes, and it has not got some of the modern features many of the other competitors have."
"Adding the test cases and assigning them to particular testers can be improved."
"I think that the portal could be cleaner and faster."
 

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 cost of this tool, in terms of licensing, is not large."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Construction Company
7%
Government
7%
Healthcare Company
7%
Construction Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Real Estate/Law Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise8
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise8
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with OpenText Silk Central?
It can be a bit slow sometimes, and it has not got some of the modern features many of the other competitors have. I am talking about features such as traceability matrix; it is designed more for W...
What is your primary use case for OpenText Silk Central?
I could leave my opinion on some ALM that I have been working with lately. Recently, I have been working with Silk, Azure DevOps, but in the past, I have worked with ALM, QC, and all that kind of s...
What advice do you have for others considering OpenText Silk Central?
I do this for my own benefit, and it has nothing to do with any company views. I work as a permanent employee for a government department. OpenText Silk Central is coming to the end of its support,...
 

Also Known As

Rational Performance Tester
Micro Focus Silk Central, Borland Silk Central, Silk Central
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

andagon, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon
AmBank Group, Krung Thai Computer Services, Deakin University
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. OpenText Silk Central and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.