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

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

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 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
19th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (16th), Test Automation Tools (30th)
OpenText Enterprise Perform...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
6th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
85
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 2.2%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is 6.4%, up from 5.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise)6.4%
IBM Rational Test Workbench2.2%
Other91.4%
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.
reviewer2668566 - PeerSpot reviewer
Founder & Chief Executive Officer at a tech vendor with 11-50 employees
Ensures high performance and adaptability while providing room for improved analytics and support
The analytics and reporting features can be improved, though they are good enough. If you have expertise, you can manage with what is included. However, it could be much better, especially with modern AI capabilities. When considering areas for improvement in OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise), there is a need for automated analysis and code-level support.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Using service virtualization, we are able to accelerate the testing and development activity."
"This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."
"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"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."
"All IBM testing tools are really well integrated."
"It is a great product that provides one with an extensive amount of functionality."
"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"We implemented through the vendor, who used highly-skilled professionals."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's best feature is the detailed reporting structure."
"It is mostly user-friendly and usable."
"ALM centralizes everything, allowing you to see the number of scripts done, the number of tests run, whether you have mapped all your requirements, and to produce metrics fairly easily for your line management and higher, making it far better than people using Excel spreadsheets."
"The most valuable part of the product is the way you can scale the basic testing easily."
"The technology will do great things for you if you have a plan and a structure and you know what you want it to do for you."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Rational Performance Tester supports cloud technology in the version 8.7, playing test scripts back on the cloud is not stable."
"Browser compatibility. IE is no longer the only browser out there, so providing users the choice of what browser to use would be great!"
"Communication between load testing hosts and components is very complex and sometimes fragile, making manual intervention still too often necessary should an anomaly occur during testing."
"The migration from LoadRunner to Performance Center was not as smooth as I would have liked."
"I'd like to see a more shared data repository. They have their costs up."
"It's not that popular on the cloud."
"Micro Focus's technical support could be more responsive."
"The initial setup was complex, but we were helped every step of the way by our NRCE (Named Response Center Engineer)."
"We are expecting more flexible to use Jenkins in continuous integration going forward."
 

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."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's price is high."
"The prices would differ depending on the number of licenses you need. I wouldn't maybe compare it to any other tools. I rate the price as seven out of ten."
"We got a very good deal. We are happy with that. We have 5,000 licenses."
"The price of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise could improve, it is expensive."
"They have a much more practical pricing model now."
"The price is okay. You're able to buy it, as opposed to paying for a full year."
"ROI is 200%."
"I give the cost a one out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
24%
Construction Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Non Profit
7%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Marketing Services Firm
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise74
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
When discussing price, OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is very expensive, which I would represent by a rating of ten. The product carries maximum expense points.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
Regarding negative sides or areas for improvement, I do not see any disadvantages so far. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) might have some drawbacks, but I did no...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
I always consider the purposes and use cases from an enterprise version perspective as a user of the product.
 

Also Known As

Rational Test Workbench, IBM Rational Performance Tester, IBM Functional Tester, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server
Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.
Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.