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

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs OpenText Silk Performer comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 24, 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

OpenText Enterprise Perform...
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
84
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (5th)
OpenText Silk Performer
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
18th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is 5.6%, down from 6.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Performer is 1.0%, down from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise)5.6%
OpenText Silk Performer1.0%
Other93.4%
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

VictorHorescu - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to test almost every tool in the companies I enter and performs well in a distributed environment
It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems. In real time, when they ask for 5,000 or 10,000 concurrent users, I have to provision a lot of virtual machines to define this load. Then there are situations with certain platforms, especially document management platforms, where the technology is so weird that normal LoadRunner protocols cannot detect it. So, in that case, I have to use that special TruClient protocol. I have to use the TruClient protocol, which actually clicks on the object. Despite the SQL technology, I can still create a script and test for performance. So what I would appreciate a lot is if this protocol would require less resources on a normal virtual machine. I can use fewer concurrent users with TruClient protocols as opposed to almost one hundred with HTTP/HTML. As opposed to many more with HTTP/HTML from, let's say, JMeter. So, optimization at that level for resource consumption by OpenText would be much appreciated.
SR
Scripting and basic test executions are good features; configuring the workload for tests is easy
In terms of areas of improvement, I would say the Silk Performance Explorer tool, which is used for monitoring and analysis, can be improved because that's where we spend most of our time when we're analyzing the test data. Any enhancements that can be provided in the monitoring sphere would be useful. When you have a large amount of data the tool struggles with it and will sometimes crash, or there may be issues with too many metrics being collected when running a test. The interface for the scripting could be more feature-rich. Integration with tools like Prometheus or Grafana where we can visualize the data would be great. As things stand, we have to use one monitoring tool to visualize data and another for visualizing the test metrics. Integration would enable us to see the metrics from Silk and correlate that with the metrics from other servers or other processes we're monitoring. It would save having to look at Silk data and server metrics separately. It's the way things are going with newer tools. I think the solution is being phased out by Micro Focus and their emphasis is focused more on LoadRunner. We haven't seen much development in the last few years.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The user interface is fine."
"It allows you to work out how well you are doing project-wise because you see the number of scripts done, the number of tests run, and whether you have mapped all your requirements to it."
"Support is nice, quick, and responsive."
"The host performance testing of any application using a host/controller is the most valuable feature."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting, correlations, and parameterization. Debugging is also easy."
"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"Provides the performance of load test applications and reliably on good reporting."
"It's a very powerful tool."
"A good monitoring tool, simple to script and easy to configure."
 

Cons

"LoadRunner Enterprise's reporting should be quicker, easier, and more flexible."
"I know there are integrations with continuous testing. It's got tie-ins to some of the newer tools to allow continuous testing. I'd love to see us not have to customize it, but for it to be out of the box."
"Currently, when we try open LRE we encounter cookie banner issues. However, I'm not sure if it is within the enterprise solution or with the vendors."
"I'd rate the scalability a six out of ten. The main reason is that it's a very expensive application. Other companies might not be able to afford it. For example, if we need to test an application with 10,000 concurrent users, the license can cost a lot of money. That's where OpenText tools shoot themselves in the foot compared to other tools. Because of the price, many companies, like one I used to work for, decided not to renew their licenses and switched to open-source testing tools."
"The price of this solution could be less expensive. However, this category of solutions is expensive."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise needs to add more features for Citrix performance-based applications testing. This was one of the challenges we observed. Additionally, we experienced some APIs challenges."
"Third-party product integrations could be a little more slickly handled."
"It is tough to maintain from the infrastructure side."
"If you have a large amount of data, the solution can struggle."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise could improve, it is expensive."
"It is a bit expensive, especially for smaller organizations, but over-all it can save you money."
"We used the Professional version and then moved to the enterprise version. We have subscribed to 1000 user licenses. The tool will be super expensive if we take up 5,000 user licenses. We have to limit ourselves on testing."
"It does everything you could hope for in a performance testing solution. It's not cheap."
"The solution should decrease its price."
"The price is okay. You're able to buy it, as opposed to paying for a full year."
"The prices would differ depending on the number of licenses you need. I wouldn't maybe compare it to any other tools. I rate the price as seven out of ten."
"This solution can be expensive."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
872,008 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise73
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
Now that LoadRunner integrates with Dynatrace and other monitoring tools, it simplifies the process of integration into a company, taking merely five minutes to set up. This ease of integration a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
The price of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise), including pricing, licensing, and setup cost, is reasonable. It is neither cheap nor expensive.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
The analytics and reporting features can be improved, though they are good enough. If you have expertise, you can manage with what is included. However, it could be much better, especially with mod...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
Micro Focus Silk Performer, Silk Performer
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
University of Colorado, Medidata, Monash University
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Load Testing Tools. Updated: October 2025.
872,008 professionals have used our research since 2012.