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

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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 Test Workbench
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
18th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (16th), Test Automation Tools (28th)
OpenText Core Performance E...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
47
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 2.2%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) is 7.5%, down from 9.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud)7.5%
IBM Rational Test Workbench2.2%
Other90.3%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1513668 - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Specialist, ITE at a government with 10,001+ employees
Good reporting and interface, but supports limited types of protocols and requires low-level script editing
It should have more interfaces. In terms of interfaces or protocols, what you can do with Rational is far limited as compared to other products out there. What it does, it does great, but it only gives you limited types of protocols. It supports between 8 to 15 types of protocols, whereas other test tools give you 20 to 30 types of protocols with which you can do testing and convert to script. It records Javascript-based scripts, and you got to know a little bit of Java to basically be able to edit them, but the level of editing you got to do is very low. I like that, but the ability to edit the script is not as good as Parasoft or LoadRunner, which have C-Script.
Mahendra Andhale - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Manager at Happiest Minds Technologies
Centralized cloud testing has improved global load generation and real-time performance insights
The most valuable features I have found in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) are that everything is online and centralized, so I do not need to go anywhere to check the configuration and everything. OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud)'s advanced analytics help identify performance bottlenecks because whenever we are executing the test scripts, it shows a good analytics view where we can simply check which APIs are not performing well. The cloud-based load generators in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) have benefited my testing setup because we can generate the load across the globe, which was previously a little bit difficult on the on-premises version. The user interface in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) is intuitive and this will be easy to communicate and collaborate amongst the team also because sharing the online URL with the team, they can simply check the analysis and everything.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."
"All IBM testing tools are really well integrated."
"Using service virtualization, we are able to accelerate the testing and development activity."
"IBM Rational integrates the testing software as Rational Test Workbench, which is quite convenient and efficient as it is able to automate the test scripts."
"Keeping up with DevOps, thus the best feature of StormRunner is that we don't have to build and maintain infrastructure anymore."
"The fact that the solution supports multiple protocols such as open source, VuGen, TruWeb, TruClient, and SAP is very important because these protocols help us to concentrate on what is really needed to produce performance tests. If something is not supported, you have to use other tools or find other ways of assimilating loads."
"The TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI."
"The TruClient feature is the most valuable for us. An application with testing can only be scripted using TruClient, so it's part web-based, but it also has its own protocol combined with HTTP and HTML. So many other tools do not recognize this specific proprietary protocol. Using TruClient, we can still create scripts that cover everything that we need to cover."
"It's a fast product, so you don't have much trouble in terms of maintenance overhead. You don't want to just look into configuring load generators, look for upgrades, and end up having that take up a lot of your time. With this solution, you just log in and you start using it. This means that there is a huge benefit in terms of the overhead of maintaining the infrastructure and the maintenance effort."
"Running a 300,000 test was very easy using StormRunner, as we just had to upload the script and create scenarios for 300,000 and run the test in 20 minutes."
"The product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"The most useful features of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud include getting load through the Performance Center, which is part of the cloud version, where we can monitor CPU and memory utilization, and response times."
 

Cons

"Rational Performance Tester supports cloud technology in the version 8.7, playing test scripts back on the cloud is not stable."
"Implementing custom functions is bit tedious job, as ECMA script does not support some of the standard java-script functions, Also the Script editor window is not user friendly."
"There are a number of things that they can do to simplify the tools, but the most important thing that they need to do is simplify the installation."
"It should have more interfaces. In terms of interfaces or protocols, what you can do with Rational is far limited as compared to other products out there."
"It should have more interfaces. In terms of interfaces or protocols, what you can do with Rational is far limited as compared to other products out there. What it does, it does great, but it only gives you limited types of protocols. It supports between 8 to 15 types of protocols, whereas other test tools give you 20 to 30 types of protocols with which you can do testing and convert to script. It records Javascript-based scripts, and you got to know a little bit of Java to basically be able to edit them, but the level of editing you got to do is very low. I like that, but the ability to edit the script is not as good as Parasoft or LoadRunner, which have C-Script."
"I think the report page could be improved, although we have used the reporting feature."
"Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved."
"This vendor, Micro Focus, is not very good at technical support."
"I don't know of any features that should be added. The solution isn't lacking anything at this point."
"Some improvements can be made to the solution's user interface"
"Custom load patterns for the performance tests: Currently StormRunner Load supports only linear ramp up of the user load and doesn’t provide the user load to follow a step incremental load pattern or any other pattern that a performance tester wants to."
"One area of improvement in the software's support is the replaying of captured data within the development environment. It would be beneficial if the replay feature could accurately mimic what the actual application is doing for better analysis and testing."
"The monitoring abilities were lacking."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It doesn't really concern me. Licensing is on a yearly basis."
"The pricing is a little bit on the higher side, although it is really good."
"There is no monthly or yearly cost but rather, the fees are based on the amount of traffic that you use."
"The solution is expensive."
"It's a very expensive solution"
"The pricing for OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is average."
"It is expensive compared to other tools."
"Pricing is dependent on what you're referring to. If you're talking about the cloud, it's likely competitive. However, if you're talking about the on-premise version, professional or enterprise licenses are required. Prices are on the high side. They are not cheap."
"It is neither costly nor cheap. It is not too high and not too low. I know the price of other tools, and LoadRunner Cloud's price is in the medium range."
"LoadRunner always had expensive pricing. At my company, we used to evaluate LoadRunner, but we stuck with Silk Performer because its pricing was always better in the past. I do feel that I got a fair deal this time. Our value-added reseller and our sales guy worked hard to give us a fair deal. I feel that we got a fair deal. We did not go for the pay-as-you-go deal. I did an upfront package. I prefer that. I want to know what my costs are."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
13%
Construction Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise30
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Do you recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
I absolutely recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud. In fact, I consider it to be one of the best performance testing tools. I like it because it provides many benefits. Some of the ones I find to...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing shows it is very high and very costly.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) can be improved by incorporating code improvements. I would add that it reduces the initial setup complexity, improves the learning curve op...
 

Also Known As

Rational Test Workbench, IBM Rational Performance Tester, IBM Functional Tester, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server
Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud, StormRunner Load, LoadRunner Cloud, and Micro Focus StormRunner Load
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.
Alfa Bank, N Brown Group, University of Copenhagen, McGraw-Hill, Cognizant
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.