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

Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing 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

Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Str...
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
21st
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
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
81
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing is 0.4%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is 12.7%, down from 13.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1631949 - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly, cheap, and quick to set up
It's actually quite easy to set it up. You can change your upgrade plan at any time. The pricing is reasonable. The support was also very good. They are great at helping you set it up. Overall, it's user-friendly. I like that you can also use different servers, which I used in Europe or in different contexts. The reporting is okay. I can get notifications via email, which is nice. Everything is immediate and in real-time.
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

"The pricing is reasonable."
"LoadRunner Professional allowed us to load test potential new payroll solutions that would be implemented throughout the entire organization so that we knew which was best suited to performing well under pressure."
"Paramterization and correlation are important features."
"I would definitely recommend OpenText LoadRunner Professional to other users."
"It has features for recording. The best feature with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is that there is very little bottleneck or overhead issues. With LoadRunner, you can spawn 2000 contributions for one machine."
"The front loader and the reporting features are the most valuable aspects of OpenText LoadRunner Professional."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"It uses high-level languages like Java, CVC, and CCL."
"The solution is quite stable."
 

Cons

"A lot of time you start the stress testing, and you sign the log in again, and I want to get rid of that. It's just not clear to me how to do it yet."
"The initial start-up of Micro Focus LoadRunner could be improved. When we add 20 or 30 scripts, the refresh is completed one by one. I would like to be able to select all the script at one time, so it can be completed in a single click, reducing the time required."
"The flexibility could be improved."
"I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support."
"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."
"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"I would like the solution to include monitoring capacity."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"You can buy plans that range from free to $500 a month."
"There is a licensing cost that is expensive."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of users."
"The licensing model is complex. You have to pick up the protocol and the number of concurrent users, and then select the level of concurrent users. For example, there would be one price for 100 to 500 users and another for 500 to 2000 users. If you choose two protocols, then you will have to pay twice the amount depending on the number of concurrent users."
"The licensing is on a yearly basis and is relatively expensive."
"The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user."
"It is a high-cost investment, particularly for companies with small budgets or limited testing needs."
"There is an annual license required to use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional. There are not any additional costs other than the licensing fees to use it."
"LoadRunner is more expensive than some competing products."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
857,162 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
No data available
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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?
I would like to improve OpenText LoadRunner Professional based on what we discussed in our last discussion, as those points remain similar and applicable. For future updates, I would like to see th...
 

Also Known As

LoadView Stress Testing
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Citrix, Aflac, Xerox, American InterContinental University, UMASS, ITT Technical Institute, Roanoke College
JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Find out what your peers are saying about Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
857,162 professionals have used our research since 2012.