Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Apache JMeter vs IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) 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:
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Apache JMeter is 16.4%, down from 25.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 1.3%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is 5.8%, down from 6.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Apache JMeter16.4%
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise)5.8%
IBM Rational Test Workbench1.3%
Other76.5%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Shashidhara Allalappa - PeerSpot reviewer
Extensive Protocol Support and Precise Reporting Elevate Testing, Though GUI Usability Needs Improvement
The GUI of Apache JMeter is not that user-friendly because we have many proxies, and we have to record through the proxy. With the limited SSL we have, we cannot use it for UI, which is a drawback. However, Apache JMeter is really good for REST APIs. I don't think there are any other areas other than the GUI that I would want improved about Apache JMeter; it is generally good and supports multiple protocols.
KashifJamil - PeerSpot reviewer
Good integration with other tools, stable, scales easily
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. This includes the workbench as well as the other tools. In the future, I would like to see the other types of tests supported, that are not already covered in the DevOps approach. This would include, for example, penetration testing.
VictorHorescu - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to test almost every tool in the companies I enter and performs well in a distributed environment
It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems. In real time, when they ask for 5,000 or 10,000 concurrent users, I have to provision a lot of virtual machines to define this load. Then there are situations with certain platforms, especially document management platforms, where the technology is so weird that normal LoadRunner protocols cannot detect it. So, in that case, I have to use that special TruClient protocol. I have to use the TruClient protocol, which actually clicks on the object. Despite the SQL technology, I can still create a script and test for performance. So what I would appreciate a lot is if this protocol would require less resources on a normal virtual machine. I can use fewer concurrent users with TruClient protocols as opposed to almost one hundred with HTTP/HTML. As opposed to many more with HTTP/HTML from, let's say, JMeter. So, optimization at that level for resource consumption by OpenText would be much appreciated.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We are using it just for load testing. We are using its free version, and it is scalable."
"We really appreciate that the solution comes with a live community, which continuously provided plugins and support protocols."
"It's stable and reliable."
"The thread groups, samplers, and listeners, which are all determined by the script's requirements, are the most valuable features of this solution."
"I definitely recommend Apache JMeter to other users because it is an open-source tool; compared to LoadRunner, you save a significant amount of money, installation is hassle-free, and there are no additional components compared to other tools."
"Monetary benefits with Apache JMeter are notable since it doesn’t require a licensed version."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is free."
"A lot of things are valuable. It is free. It has a lot of features, such as report generation and integration with CI/CD, which makes it very competitive with the other paid solutions available in the market. It is a good solution."
"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."
"Creating the script is very easy and user friendly."
"This is a product that has a lot of capabilities and is the most mature tool of its kind in the market."
"It is mostly user-friendly and usable."
"​Probably its prime advantage, it provides a centralized location for testing."
"The most valuable feature is the Vuser protocols."
"What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"LoadRunner's UI is project-convenient, allowing easier simulation of real-time scenarios and producing comprehensive reports that are effortless to read."
"For me, LoadRunner stands out, especially with its reporting capabilities, the graphs that can be generated, and the unique feature of measuring our application's response alongside our infrastructure metrics, such as CPU, memory, or disk usage, all presented in graph form. This is something other applications struggle to match."
 

Cons

"There could be improvements in terms of memory utilization. We are going to migrate away from JMeter in the near future."
"Scalability is somewhat of an issue, which I would rate around five or six. For runs involving a thousand or more users, JMeter presents a problem because of memory and related issues."
"If the solution was GUI based, I believe that it would be more versatile."
"One area for improvement is the ability to decrease load suddenly during tests. Currently, we need to use multiple separate JMeter instances to simulate reductions in load, which isn't ideal."
"The solution could use some sort of educational features to offer tips and hints to help users navigate it better. They should improve the manuals and help files."
"The UI has room for improvement."
"I need to consider it further because as features increase, it might become more complicated, and my goal has always been simplicity. Currently, I have to focus on other tasks, and I'm handling multiple responsibilities, so I can't juggle everything at once. However, if you ask me, I believe EJB covers most functionalities that are crucial. One improvement I'd suggest is adding a graphical aspect to the Gateway, making it a bit more colorful. Unlike JMeter, which lacks color, having a bit of color in the graphical aspects would be beneficial. Overall, for the essential features, EJB should work fine."
"Until now, JMeter is not supporting most of the protocols."
"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."
"While the stability is generally good, there are a few strange issues that crop up unexpectedly which affect consistent use of the product."
"A room for improvement in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is that it should take multiple exhibitions for a particular scenario and have automatic trending for that. This will be a very useful feature that lets users look into how many exhibitions happened for the scenario and their performance, and you should be able to see the data within the Performance Center dashboard. For example, there's one scenario I'm focusing on multiple times in a month, and if I check five times, there's no way for me to see the trend and find out how it went with those five exhibitions. It would be great if the Performance Center has a view of all five exhibitions, particularly transaction by transaction, and how they happened. If Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise shows you the time trends, information about one exhibition to another, and how each performed, it'll be an immense feature, and that should be visible to every user. Reporting should be simpler in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. If I did a scenario with one exhibition now, and I did that scenario again, then I should be able to schedule that scenario for the exhibition, and if that scenario is executed multiple times, there should be the option to turn it into a single view that shows you all the transactions, how the performance was, what the trend graph is for a particular time, etc."
"The solution is a very expensive tool when compared with other tools."
"Micro Focus's technical support could be more responsive."
"The product's scalability must be improved."
"The worst thing about it is it did not have zero footprint on your PC."
"They had wanted to change the GUI to improve the look and feel. However, since that time, we see a lot of hanging issues."
"The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and by including autocorrelation capability."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool is open-source."
"I was using the free version of the software."
"No licensing is required as it is a free, open-source tool."
"Since it's free, there's no need for extensive support or improvements in pricing."
"This is an open-source solution, and there are no fees."
"I haven't looked into it. Most of our projects are nonprofit or grant-based. Everything is public commons, so we don't really have to worry about that so much."
"Free"
"The solution is open-source."
"The pricing is a little bit on the higher side, although it is really good."
"It doesn't really concern me. Licensing is on a yearly basis."
"I give the cost a one out of ten."
"The price is really steep. It's an enterprise-level tool."
"I have not been directly involved in price negotiations but my understanding is that while the cost is a little bit high, it provides good value for the money."
"I rate the product's pricing a three out of ten."
"It does everything you could hope for in a performance testing solution. It's not cheap."
"It is a bit expensive, especially for smaller organizations, but over-all it can save you money."
"We got an 80 percent discount for the product. It was cost-effective, but licenses tend to get expensive."
"The price of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise could improve, it is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
868,288 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
30%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Non Profit
9%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
23%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business27
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise55
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise73
 

Questions from the Community

How does Postman compare with Apache JMeter?
Postman lets you easily define variables, which then get updated automatically. This is a huge time-saver and makes p...
How does BlazeMeter compare with Apache JMeter?
Blazemeter is a continuous testing platform that provides scriptless test automation. It unifies functional and perfo...
What do you like most about Apache JMeter?
I appreciate JMeter's simplicity and power for performance testing.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
Now that LoadRunner integrates with Dynatrace and other monitoring tools, it simplifies the process of integration in...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
The price of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise), including pricing, licensing, and s...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
The analytics and reporting features can be improved, though they are good enough. If you have expertise, you can man...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

JMeter
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

AOL, Orbitz, Innopath Software, PrepMe, Sapient, Corporate Express Australia, CSIRO, Ephibian, Talis, DATACOM, ALALOOP, eFusion, Panter, Sourcepole, University of Western Cape
Financial Insurance Management Corp.
Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Perforce, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: September 2025.
868,288 professionals have used our research since 2012.