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

Cavisson NetStorm vs OpenText LoadRunner Professional comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 6, 2025

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

Cavisson NetStorm
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
18th
Average Rating
9.4
Reviews Sentiment
8.3
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText LoadRunner Profess...
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
80
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Cavisson NetStorm is 0.5%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is 12.5%, down from 13.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1329360 - PeerSpot reviewer
Has monitoring capabilities integrated into it to see the performance of components while the test is in the running phase
NetStorm can generate high load with a single machine. Its Runlogic feature is very useful to send load to cover each and every flow of the application. NetStorm gives the feasibility of generating load with multiple load arrival models helping components to be tested based on its usage. NetStorm has monitoring capabilities integrated into it to see the performance of components while the test is in the running phase. One more great functionality is the ability to control the load runtime by increasing or decreasing the virtual users or pausing the users to keep on repeating the transactions without exiting.
HelenSague - PeerSpot reviewer
A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications
I do not have any big challenges with LoadRunner. I only have some issues with load generators. It is a very common issue, and I hope it will be resolved in the latest release. For example, when we start to run our tests, users get the message that the load generator exceeded 80% of the CPU utilization. Even when the number of users is less, we get these messages. I am trying to resolve it, but it is not going. It is annoying. It is not a failure, but I hope that it will be resolved. IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Designs dynamic scripts and scenarios, as per our requirements, which is one the most important feature available in NetStorm. It helps us to do performance testing of our application in a periodic way."
"NetStorm can generate high load with a single machine. Its Runlogic feature is very useful to send load to cover each and every flow of the application. NetStorm gives the feasibility of generating load with multiple load arrival models helping components to be tested based on its usage."
"This tool helps to focus on real-time transactions that occur at a very high rate."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to create performance test cases quickly and then execute them. It provides a lot of powerful features to do that very efficiently and effectively."
"The capabilities and flexibility of the Controller, the ability to monitor the systems under test, and the comprehensive results Analysis which saves a great deal of time."
"Scaling is definitely one of the best features of this solution. There are no issues scaling to 10,000 or 20,000 concurrent users."
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation."
"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
 

Cons

"Need to add or support some more APIs in the Script Manager window."
"The user interface had to be improved for the product. Its user interface should be made simple and easy to customize as per user needs."
"In the next release, we are looking for a JS instrumentation feature that would be helpful in identifying client-side issues at an early stage, or during testing."
"The monitoring technology in LoadRunner could be improved. It depends on another tool called SiteScope, but they only took a part of the features of SiteScope. They need to improve on that."
"The product is pretty heavy and should be more lightweight."
"In terms of improvement, it lacks mobile testing features present in some competitors, like GitMatters, which I find valuable."
"There is room for improvement of the pilot processing, the dump analysis, and forwarding results based on the dump analysis. We have a generator, root controller, different agents, and an analyzer, so all of these are very important when it comes to LoadRunner."
"In terms of resource management, you need a lot of high capacity boxes if you need to generate a load of 1,000 or 2,000 users."
"Instead of having too many graphs and tabs, use the analysis section to get a more simplified defect analysis."
"The price of this solution should be cheaper."
"LoadRunner experiences high resource utilization. Even though we have machines with higher configurations, I've observed this behavior. Heavy traffic recording results in the tool hanging. So heavy traffic recording makes the tool slow."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"NetStorm is priced well when compared to many well-known tools."
"The pricing model, especially when involving partners, could use some improvement."
"LoadRunner is more expensive than some competing products."
"It is reasonable. We pay the cost, but we have everything. We have a big set of licenses for SAP and other applications. We have all kinds of licenses."
"The pricing model and the software licensing model could be better."
"LoadRunner Professional's licensing costs are on the higher side, apart from the Community Edition."
"The cost depends greatly on the needs of the testing engagement."
"Pricing depends on our choices because it depends on what type of protocol we are getting, what type of licensing we are getting, and what kind of relationships we have with HP and Micro Focus."
"The price is a bit on the high side, but it is still affordable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
849,686 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
22%
Retailer
20%
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
When designing a workload model offers a good range of possibilities for creating goal-oriented scenarios, which helps us understand and meet SLAs.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
Technical support needs to be faster, and the pricing should be more competitive. The virtual table server feature should be reintroduced. Some AI capabilities should be added. There should be an '...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Oracle, Macy's, Redbox, art.com, Pronto Networks, A10 Networks, Renesas, San Jose Medical Group
JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Find out what your peers are saying about Cavisson NetStorm vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.