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

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs Tricentis qTest 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
Tricentis qTest
Ranking in Test Management Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

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 Tricentis qTest is 6.2%, down from 16.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis qTest6.2%
IBM Rational Performance Tester3.4%
Other90.4%
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.
reviewer2356440 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
User stories and test artifacts migrate seamlessly to innovative management tools
Customers are moving towards Tricentis due to their association with SAP. There is interest in understanding if there are connectors for converting UFT scripts to Tosca, as many customers are looking to make this transition. We have developed capabilities for automated migration from ALM to Tricentis qTest without any loss of data. However, for UFT to Tosca migration, scripts need to be rewritten as there are no automatic converters available. From a project perspective, there have not been many challenges with Tricentis products. The main improvement area would be developing a connector to move UFT scripts to Tosca, which would enable quicker and easier movement for customers. This would aid faster adoption of Tosca and ease the financial pressure on clients who currently need to invest in rewriting scripts.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's definitely helped in scaling the performance of our application."
"This tool is very scalable, and for large scale tests, i.e., 5000 virtual users and up, it performs very well."
"Technical support is very good. I'm very satisfied with the assistance we've received so far."
"Helped in improving response times in a few of our transactions."
"It's one of the most cost-effective products on the market."
"Virtual Users."
"It has improved our visibility of reporting and simplifying performance testing for larger projects/programs."
"The setup was straightforward, it depends on the company's regulations and infrastructure policies."
"qTest helps us compile issues and have one place to look for them. We're not chasing down emails and other sources. So in the grand scheme of things, it does help to resolve issues faster because everyone is working off of the same information in one location."
"The JIRA integration is really important to us because it allows our business analysts to see test results inside the JIRA ticket and that we have met the definition of "done," and have made sure we tested to the requirements of the story."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"The test automation tracking is valuable because our automated testing systems are distributed and they did not necessarily have a single point where they would come together and be reported. Having all of them report back to qTest, and having one central place where all of my test executions are tracked and reported on, is incredibly valuable because it saves time."
"Overall, the solution has increased testing efficiency by about 60 percent, compared to what they were doing before."
"The most valuable feature is reusing test cases; we can put in a set of test cases for an application and, every time we deploy it, we are able to rerun those tests very easily, which saves us time and improves quality as well."
"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."
"It has taken us to the next level, in a very positive way, in the management of our overall test cases."
 

Cons

"As intuitive as a product can be, its use could still benefit from a decent set of manuals or guides."
"It is complex for a novice."
"Support for more protocols is required."
"User friendliness can be better, as this is one area where it lacks."
"Installation and configuration processes, and support from IBM all need to be improved."
"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."
"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."
"I'd like to see better integration in the platform so that there is a testing automation continuum, where customers can easily mature through qTest and Tosca functionalities."
"Overall, it gets the job done, but it's a struggle to do it."
"Right now, on a scale of one to five, I would say the Insights reporting engine is a three because we are facing some performance issues."
"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."
"For UFT to Tosca migration, scripts need to be rewritten as there are no automatic converters available."
"You can add what I believe are called suites and modules. I opened a ticket on this as to what's the difference. And it seems there's very little difference. In some places, the documentation says there's no difference. You just use them to organize how you want. But they're not quite the same because there are some options you can do under one and not the other. That gets confusing. But since they are very close to the same, people use them differently and that creates a lack of consistency."
"The graphical reports, API integration with the customized automation test tools and support for the same need to be improved."
"Could use additional integration so that there is a testing automation continuum."
 

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."
"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."
"Based on whatever I heard, I can say that Tricentis qTest is a little costlier than other test management tools, like Jira, Zephyr, or Xray."
"For me, pricing for Tricentis qTest is moderate, so that's a five out of ten. It's more affordable than my company's previous solution, which was Micro Focus ALM."
"We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."
"We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that."
"We signed for a year and I believe we paid $24,000 for Flood, Manager, and the qTest Insights. We paid an extra for $4,000 for the migration support."
"Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year."
"It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market."
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%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Insurance Company
9%
Healthcare Company
8%
 

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 Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise14
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tricentis qTest?
The solution is expensive. For the features that are available, depending on the volumes of licenses we get, we are able to get better discounts as strategic partners of Tosca. We can pass some ben...
What needs improvement with Tricentis qTest?
One of the things I noticed was the reporting part wasn't very good. It was hard to customize the dashboards in Tricentis qTest, and there were limitations in the dashboard. There may be missing fe...
What is your primary use case for Tricentis qTest?
The main use cases for Tricentis qTest are for test management, to keep test cases and execute those. Overall, centralized test management with Tricentis qTest was beneficial for the team's product...
 

Also Known As

Rational Performance Tester
qTest
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

andagon, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Performance Tester vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.