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
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
86
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 August 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is 6.9%, up from 5.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear LoadNinja is 2.3%, up from 2.0% 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)6.9%
SmartBear LoadNinja2.3%
Other90.8%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

VK
A VP at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Performance testing has supported web app peak analysis but needs better setup and smarter scripting
Regarding points for improvement for OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise), I see that features are not being fully developed yet. If OpenText could think about bringing AI features into the tool, it could save maximum time in scripting or make scripting effortless, particularly in correlation, which is where the complexity involved in script development exists. If any AI features could replace or eliminate more manual work on the correlation part, that is where we could see a game-changing improvement for the tool. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) can be positioned very well in the market. However, I see that the basic correlations are only being handled by the autocorrelation engine in the LoadRunner tool, and I would expect a few improvements to handle even complex correlation problems so that the tool can be appropriately positioned compared to their peers.
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

"It helped us to achieve our goals within the stipulated time and is a good solution for load testing."
"For API testing, LoadRunner, getting the script developed in LoadRunner is very straightforward."
"LoadRunner's UI is project-convenient, allowing easier simulation of real-time scenarios and producing comprehensive reports that are effortless to read."
"It's the tool for performance testing, and it's definitely the industry leader that I've been using for years."
"Single license can be used optimally in different time zones for 300% ROI"
"Hewlett Packard Enterprise is a recognized leader in the performance testing space, and with every new software release, it continues to solidify its position as a front-runner and as an innovator."
"The user interface is fine."
"Overall, I am satisfied with this product."
"SmartBear LoadNinja is easy to use and implement."
"We are happy with the technical support."
"It's a very simple tool for performance testing."
"But for now, we are happy with what have been using."
"The most powerful aspect is the ease of use."
 

Cons

"Support is very poor. We've had a very frustrating experience with them."
"The product's scalability must be improved."
"We'd like the product to include protocol identifiers whenever a tester wants to test a new application."
"Regarding OpenText technical support, I find it very pathetic."
"Running virtual users especially with a huge number is a very challenging task. The load generators may over utilize its resources (CPU/ memory) due to improper default configurations, or improper use of LoadRunner and Performance Center."
"Reporting should be simpler in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise."
"Premium support is great, but before that, when we just had general support, it was not all that great."
"The trending reports do not always work as I would expect them to. Additionally, trending a test run can take over 30 minutes when it should take five."
"It needs time to mature."
"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."
"As we ran the test, we couldn't see the real-time results of how the solution behaved for 200 to 400 virtual users."
"Certainly, the cost could be reduced. It requires attention. Clients have expressed dissatisfaction with the price."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"We purchased the license via SAP."
"I rate the product's pricing a three out of ten."
"The price is really steep. It's an enterprise-level tool."
"It is a bit expensive, especially for smaller organizations, but over-all it can save you money."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's price is high."
"The solution should decrease its price."
"The price is a bit too high."
"Certainly, the cost could be reduced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Construction Company
10%
University
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise75
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 points for improvement for OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise), I see that features are not being fully developed yet. If OpenText could think about bringi...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
My use case for OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is related to enterprise twenty six, which we are going to upgrade now. We focus on web applications.
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: August 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.