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

Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing vs OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 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

Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Str...
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
17th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Professional Perfo...
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing is 1.6%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is 13.3%, up from 12.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)13.3%
Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing1.6%
Other85.1%
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1631949 - PeerSpot reviewer
Solutions Architect ICT at a non-tech company with 10,001+ employees
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.
SR
Assistant Director at Synapxe
Has enabled my team to identify bottlenecks effectively and deliver reliable performance analysis across projects
I have mentioned many advantages about this product, but to discuss disadvantages or areas that could be improved, I would need to consult with my engineers who are working on it. So far I have not heard of any significant issues. I can gather specific improvement suggestions from my architect and provide that information later.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The initial setup is easy, and if you need more help, they are there to assist."
"The pricing is reasonable."
"LoadView is a perfect cloud-based load testing tool."
"LoadView is a flexible solution, which protects your investments."
"LoadRunner is the standard choice for performance testing before any critical applications are allowed to go live, preventing any performance issues."
"Real-time performance stats, analysis tool, protocol coverage, and simple integration of external monitors are the most valuable features."
"It is a good and stable tool."
"The most valuable feature depends on what we're doing at the time. In the past, the greatest feature was the ability to record and play back to produce a script. Another great feature is that we can monitor the system. They also support many protocols to perform load testing."
"I've always been impressed by the versatility and plain power of this testing tool."
"The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"Enables us to test most of the products and projects that we have across all the different technologies, without having to look at other tools."
 

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."
"If I do the web application test, I want to bypass a login part."
"Remote Load Generators has issues in identifying objects on dynamic web pages"
"Premium support is great, but before that when we just had general support, it was not all that great."
"We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly."
"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."
"Compared to some other vendors, there is a lack of community support."
"I recently just got to see LoadRunner Developer, but it is still not fully developed to use."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
"There should be more integration with more open-source platforms."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"You can buy plans that range from free to $500 a month."
"The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user."
"LoadRunner Professional's licensing costs are on the higher side, apart from the Community Edition."
"It is competing with other products that may cost significantly less or may be available as open-source. Because of that it is relatively expensive."
"The pricing model, especially when involving partners, could use some improvement."
"For licensing, we pay a lot for it. But the incentive is the support we get with it, that we pay once, and we are set."
"The licensing of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. If it can be easier and the concurrent run can be included with the current total number of users, it would be helpful."
"LoadRunner is more expensive than some competing products."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of users."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
902,495 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Penetration and Neoload Tester at a university with 501-1,000 employees
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%
Construction Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise67
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
I have mentioned many advantages about this product, but to discuss disadvantages or areas that could be improved, I would need to consult with my engineers who are working on it. So far I have not...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
I work only with the performance testing tools and not with OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) for mobile and web applications. With performance testing, I am t...
 

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 Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,495 professionals have used our research since 2012.