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

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs SmartBear LoadNinja comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 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 Enterprise Perform...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
6th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
6th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
85
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SmartBear LoadNinja
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
15th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
11th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is 6.8%, up from 5.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear LoadNinja is 2.4%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise)6.8%
SmartBear LoadNinja2.4%
Other90.8%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2668566 - PeerSpot reviewer
Founder & Chief Executive Officer at a tech vendor with 11-50 employees
Ensures high performance and adaptability while providing room for improved analytics and support
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 modern AI capabilities. When considering areas for improvement in OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise), there is a need for automated analysis and code-level support.
Kapil Tarka - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Manager at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Easy to use with good documentation and helpful support
It's a new tool when I compare it with LoadViewer and HP LoadRunner. It needs time to mature. For example, it needs to improve concurrency. When you run a test suite, your scripts will generate some test data. If we are running a banking application and then we are running a full end-to-end suite, there are many actions that need testing. There's a lot of data getting generated. There should be a variable that we can store for later in our later test cases. We need data management and dynamic data generation to be able to capture the data which is generated.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"If it is in the airline industry, I would definitely suggest to them, "Okay, this is a perfect product because of the number of protocols it supports," because we looked at other open source software and we couldn't find a product which matches Performance Center, which supports so many protocols."
"The most beneficial features of the solution are flexibility and versatility in their performance."
"I think it's the best product out there for performance and load testing."
"The initial setup was straightforward. I was able to download everything myself without any IT support."
"IP Spoofing can be done using Performance Center."
"I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself."
"It gives you a wide-ranging view on performance bottlenecks, from CPU to memory to network etc. This helps identify possible bottlenecks in the production environment, as well as the expected and unexpected loads."
"The solution does support a wide range of technologies and protocols. Plus, two features, network virtualization, and service virtualization, are really helpful. Apart from that, the way they have their billing scenarios, like the execution, is very good."
"But for now, we are happy with what have been using."
"SmartBear LoadNinja is easy to use and implement."
"We are happy with the technical support."
"The most powerful aspect is the ease of use."
"It's a very simple tool for performance testing."
 

Cons

"The reporting could be a lot better. It's cumbersome."
"The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved."
"From time to time, we encounter bugs that are unexpected from a 20-plus years old solution."
"While the stability is generally good, there are a few strange issues that crop up unexpectedly which affect consistent use of the product."
"More real-time monitoring should be available for the system under test."
"Not as fast as I would like, but they work with our customers in addition to working with us which is great because we don’t always have to be involved."
"I think some enhanced support, be it online or documentation, would be appreciated."
"Third-party product integrations could be a little more slickly handled."
"Certainly, the cost could be reduced. It requires attention. Clients have expressed dissatisfaction with the price."
"On a smaller scale, there will be no budget issues, but as we expand to a larger user base, I believe we will face some pricing challenges."
"It needs time to mature."
"As we ran the test, we couldn't see the real-time results of how the solution behaved for 200 to 400 virtual users."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"LoadRunner Enterprise's price is high."
"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."
"This solution can be expensive."
"I have not been directly involved in price negotiations but my understanding is that while the cost is a little bit high, it provides good value for the money."
"The price is okay. You're able to buy it, as opposed to paying for a full year."
"I give the cost a one out of ten."
"The solution should decrease its price."
"The price of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise could improve, it is expensive."
"Certainly, the cost could be reduced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
903,807 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Construction Company
11%
Marketing Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Construction Company
9%
University
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise74
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
When discussing price, OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is very expensive, which I would represent by a rating of ten. The product carries maximum expense points.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
Regarding negative sides or areas for improvement, I do not see any disadvantages so far. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) might have some drawbacks, but I did no...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
I always consider the purposes and use cases from an enterprise version perspective as a user of the product.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
SmartBear LoadComplete
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
Falafel Software
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. SmartBear LoadNinja and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
903,807 professionals have used our research since 2012.