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

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs RadView WebLOAD comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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

OpenText Professional Perfo...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
1st
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
RadView WebLOAD
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
12th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
15th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is 15.6%, up from 13.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RadView WebLOAD is 3.5%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)15.6%
RadView WebLOAD3.5%
Other80.9%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
it_user1265766 - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Team Lead at Medtronic, Inc.
IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process but the reporting is complicated
You pay for the number of users that you're going to be utilizing. In order to scale up, you would have to pay for additional users, but for our use case, we're able to scale fairly easily. We have a license for 500, but we're using half of that for our initial workflow. For maintenance, as far as I'm aware, there's only one person really working on the maintenance of it and we only really have one user consistently using the software. He's a QA person. We don't have any plans to increase our usage. Even though we've had it for a while, we have a major push to start utilizing it more. I imagine we'll probably be using it and utilizing it across our QA team in the next year. We're in the process of determining whether we're going to keep it or not due to the fact that it is so expensive. That's why I've been researching alternatives for the RadView.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it."
"It covers the most technology, is the most reliable, it gives us the most features."
"I appreciate its ability to handle various internal calls and its user-friendly interface."
"Before going into production, we use it to validate some transactions, new environments and cloud environments."
"Very useful for finding out how the system responds to load, stress, and normal situations, as well as benchmarking with other industry competitors. It also improved our response time, memory delegation, and CPU delegation. In addition, we used LoadRunner to optimize our database and website."
"The feature we've found most valuable for us is the number of protocols available."
"I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional's stability at eight out of ten."
"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"Technical support has been excellent, responsive, and helpful in trying to work through issues and questions."
"They are the best of all of the vendors I deal with, hands down."
"The analytics pack is probably one of the most powerful tools that I've seen."
"The solution is simple and useful."
"The tool itself is very viable for us."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting; it is interesting, intuitive, and we can do some parameterization."
"Customer service is excellent; they're very responsive and willing to work extra hours, and in the first couple of hours that we were up and running, they taught us how to implement it and to figure out and negotiate AWS."
 

Cons

"Complexity. LoadRunner is not simple to learn by installing it and "doing it"."
"The solution must be more user-friendly."
"The technical support of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. I had an issue with the licensing and their response time is slow. They can improve on this in the future."
"It needs to be easier to use. I know LoadRunner so I think it's a tool that's difficult to understand."
"It's a very expensive tool so I think licensing costs could be reduced."
"If the support of the protocols was the same throughout the other protocols and it was there evenly, then I would rate the product higher."
"Instead of having too many graphs and tabs, use the analysis section to get a more simplified defect analysis."
"The only scenario we see a complexity is when we have single-page applications where JavaScript is talking to the server and coming back. That's the only scenario where we find some difficulties."
"When it finds a problem with response times, it doesn't specify exactly where the problem actually is."
"We did have an issue with some of the script working incorrectly in our higher environments."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
"There is no analytical dashboard."
"It would be great, in addition to the load tool, it would be nice, if Radview offered a JavaScript based functional test tool as well."
"We have had a lot of trouble with this solution, and it is actually adapted to our application."
"The reporting side of things is really complicated. It's difficult to get out exactly what you're looking for, there are almost too many options."
"I would like to be able to edit a scenario instead of re-recording a scenario."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is a bit on the high side, but it is still affordable."
"I would rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten."
"The cost depends greatly on the needs of the testing engagement."
"LoadRunner Professional is an expensive product."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise's pricing is reasonable."
"This is not a cheap product."
"The pricing model, especially when involving partners, could use some improvement."
"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."
"It costs $8,600 yearly and we have the Cloud, which is an additional $800. Our perpetual license is $800 and then the Cloud functionality with our 500 users is the $8,600."
"We purchased a license for two years."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 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
Outsourcing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Performing Arts
13%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Construction Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise67
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Large Enterprise10
 

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
GoDaddy, Praxair, DeVry University and the College Board.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs. RadView WebLOAD and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.