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

Apache JMeter vs OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) vs Tricentis NeoLoad 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:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.3
Apache JMeter offers scalable, cost-effective performance testing, integrating well with CICD and outperforming HP Performance Center in returns.
Sentiment score
7.4
Users report cost savings and improved clarity with OpenText Core Performance Engineering, citing significant annual reductions in testing expenses.
Sentiment score
7.0
Tricentis NeoLoad delivers significant ROI by enhancing testing efficiency, saving costs, and quickly addressing performance issues.
With Apache JMeter, I have gained great statistics for performance and server metrics.
LoadRunner Cloud helps with risk elimination by reducing performance degradation in production, ensuring a better end-user experience.
The ROI is not necessarily cost savings. Sometimes a customer wants to use OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, or it's the only tool that will solve the problem depending on the application.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.3
Apache JMeter relies on community support, praised for efficiency but lacking the dedicated assistance of commercial tools.
Sentiment score
6.4
Opinions on OpenText Core Performance Engineering's support are mixed, with praise for customer service but issues with response times.
Sentiment score
7.6
Tricentis NeoLoad offers responsive, expert support, praised for flexibility, though some experience occasional delays; overall satisfaction remains high.
With AI models ChatGPT, troubleshooting issues has become very easy for us.
The support for Apache JMeter is excellent.
Apache JMeter has strong support through its vast Java-based community on platforms like Stack Overflow.
I faced issues with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud support when a problem took three to four months to resolve, which negatively impacted our project, especially when key team members were unavailable during leave periods.
It's important to note that OpenText has recently taken over Micro Focus.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
Apache JMeter is scalable for large loads, but requires careful configuration and infrastructure, especially for enterprise-level setups.
Sentiment score
7.7
OpenText Core Performance Engineering scales efficiently for varied needs, handling up to two million users, with notable flexibility and support.
Sentiment score
7.5
Tricentis NeoLoad efficiently scales for varying user volumes, supporting large applications with high user satisfaction and deployment flexibility.
JMeter is highly scalable, easily handling increased loads through the use of multiple servers.
This restricts the number of users and necessitates increasing load agents or distributing the script across multiple machines.
For backend automation and performance testing with web services, web APIs, and queue management systems, I would rate Apache JMeter's scalability as between eight and nine.
It is very scalable, and on the cloud, it's even more scalable, potentially unlimited.
With load generators available, it is easily scalable to meet our needs.
The solution is highly scalable, which is its main feature.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.2
Apache JMeter is stable but may face memory issues under high loads; effective in non-GUI mode with proper management.
Sentiment score
7.7
<p>OpenText Core Performance Engineering is reliable with minor issues, quickly resolved by responsive R&amp;D and customer support teams.</p>
Sentiment score
7.4
Tricentis NeoLoad is generally stable, though large-scale performance tests and environment settings may cause minor stability issues.
JMeter performs exceptionally well, especially in non-GUI mode, which supports high loads efficiently.
Several necessary features still need improvements, specifically in terms of reports and additional functionalities compared to other commercial tools.
Previous versions of Apache JMeter were a little unstable, but the new versions are very stable.
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is extremely stable for our use case.
 

Room For Improvement

Apache JMeter needs UI, reporting, and automation improvements to handle complex scenarios, large loads, and enhance overall usability.
OpenText Core Performance Engineering struggles with load patterns, reporting, network simulation, support speed, UI design, and agile integration.
NeoLoad needs protocol support, UI improvements, affordable pricing, better documentation, and refined reporting for large projects.
With AI becoming more prominent, they can implement features where it can generate code by itself based on the results or provide suggestions.
Currently, we need to use multiple separate JMeter instances to simulate reductions in load, which isn't ideal.
The tool needs improvements related to client-side metrics, integrating with tools like YSlow or HTTP Watch, and enhancing mobile testing capabilities.
In-depth analysis tools found in the standalone LoadRunner analysis, such as graph merging and setting granularity, would be beneficial.
The technical personnel are not able to fix issues quickly, which becomes problematic during critical situations.
I expect an improvement in the cloud location offering to better serve local applications, particularly to enhance testing accuracy for users in regions like Thailand.
The effect of the new license policy is that NeoLoad becomes more and more unattractive for smaller companies, and only bigger companies are interested or find the license fee fair.
 

Setup Cost

Enterprise users prefer Apache JMeter for its cost-effectiveness and flexibility in performance testing without licensing fees.
OpenText Core Performance Engineering provides flexible, usage-based pricing, supporting multiple protocols, justifying costs for enterprise-level performance testing.
Tricentis NeoLoad is seen as cost-effective and flexible, adaptable to business needs, but costs can rise with expanded use.
Using JMeter helps us avoid additional costs for high-load testing since it is open-source and allows for unlimited virtual users at no extra cost.
It's a cost-effective solution.
Apache JMeter is completely free as it is open-source.
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud pricing is flexible, offering a more affordable solution compared to the more expensive on-premise LoadRunner.
It's delivering functionality, but we also use JMeter, which is free.
 

Valuable Features

Apache JMeter is praised for its user-friendliness, cost-effectiveness, plugin support, and integration capabilities in performance testing.
OpenText Core Performance Engineering offers scalable, easy-to-use load testing with integration, automation, anomaly detection, and no maintenance required.
Tricentis NeoLoad offers easy script creation, integration, and comprehensive analysis for effective performance testing across various environments.
JMeter facilitates scripting capabilities, which include options for Groovy scripts.
It's useful for both the person conducting the test and the higher management, like project managers or senior executives, who may not know about the test.
Despite being open source, it offers features comparable to paid tools.
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud can scale in a cloud-based environment to support up to ten thousand concurrent users without capacity loss, which is not possible with on-premise solutions on personal machines.
Its LoadRunner functionality allows us to record a solution's networking protocol and replay them.
A significant difference is in its depth of analysis.
Most graphs can be configured with drag-and-drop, which is handy, and you get graphs suitable for reporting issues.
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Apache JMeter is 16.1%, down from 24.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) is 9.3%, up from 8.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis NeoLoad is 12.9%, down from 15.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Apache JMeter16.1%
Tricentis NeoLoad12.9%
OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud)9.3%
Other61.7%
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.
Jyoti Ranjan Behera - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly features facilitate monitoring while support could be more responsive
I am satisfied with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud as a product, but the ticket resolution time is concerning. The technical personnel are not able to fix issues quickly, which becomes problematic during critical situations. Compared to previous support, I notice that while experts previously resolved issues immediately, current experts take more time to resolve issues, which is the main challenge we are facing. They are now lacking regional support, which takes more time than it used to. My suggestions for improvements to OpenText LoadRunner Cloud would be to have specific experts available who can resolve issues more quickly, as delays can impact project timelines significantly.
Dirk O. Schweier - PeerSpot reviewer
Key reports enable insightful analysis and useful for continuous performance validation
Since the ownership of NeoLoad has changed to Tricentis, they have done a very poor job with license management. They changed the license policy very abruptly. The effect of the new license policy is that NeoLoad becomes more and more unattractive for smaller companies, and only bigger companies are interested or find the license fee fair. The smallest license fee is very high, and there is no starter package at the moment.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
871,408 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Apr 13, 2014
LoadRunner vs NeoLoad
The six phases of an IT project Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent (the performance tester) Praise and rewards for the incompetent non-participants This article has been put together as part of an evaluation of the performance test tools NeoLoad and…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business27
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise55
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise29
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise49
 

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.
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...
What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud pricing is flexible, offering a more affordable solution compared to the more expensive on-...
Do you recommend Tricentis NeoLoad?
I highly recommend Tricentis NeoLoad for companies that are in need of a versatile load and performance testing tool....
What is your primary use case for Neotys NeoLoad?
My relationship with Tricentis NeoLoad is that I implemented it during a trial period, and then they implemented some...
What do you like most about Tricentis NeoLoad?
The most valuable feature of Tricentis NeoLoad for us has been its ability to easily monitor all the load generators ...
 

Also Known As

JMeter
Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud, StormRunner Load, LoadRunner Cloud, and Micro Focus StormRunner Load
NeoLoad, Neotys NeoLoad
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AOL, Orbitz, Innopath Software, PrepMe, Sapient, Corporate Express Australia, CSIRO, Ephibian, Talis, DATACOM, ALALOOP, eFusion, Panter, Sourcepole, University of Western Cape
Alfa Bank, N Brown Group, University of Copenhagen, McGraw-Hill, Cognizant
Dell, H&R Block, Best Buy, Orange, Verizon Wireless, ING, Mazda, Siemens, University of Oxford
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Perforce, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: October 2025.
871,408 professionals have used our research since 2012.