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

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

The compared OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) and OpenText Silk Test solutions aren't in the same category. OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is ranked #4 in PTT , with an average rating of 8.6, and holds a 13.7% mindshare in the category. OpenText Silk Test is ranked #20 in FT , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 1.1% mindshare. Additionally, 94% of OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of OpenText Silk Test users who would recommend it.
OpenText Silk Test
Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews
  • 968 Views
  • 726 Comparison Views
93% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive Summary
We performed a comparison between OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) and OpenText Silk Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Perforce, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed Performance Testing Tools Report (Updated: September 2025).
Buyer's Guide
Performance Testing Tools
September 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 867,341 peers since 2012

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...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (4th), Load Testing Tools (3rd)
OpenText Silk Test
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (20th), Regression Testing Tools (8th), Test Automation Tools (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is designed for Performance Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 13.7%, up 12.3% compared to last year.
OpenText Silk Test, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 1.1% mindshare, up 1.1% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)13.7%
Apache JMeter16.4%
Tricentis NeoLoad13.8%
Other56.1%
Performance Testing Tools
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Silk Test1.1%
Tricentis Tosca18.5%
BrowserStack10.2%
Other70.2%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HelenSague - PeerSpot reviewer
A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications
I do not have any big challenges with LoadRunner. I only have some issues with load generators. It is a very common issue, and I hope it will be resolved in the latest release. For example, when we start to run our tests, users get the message that the load generator exceeded 80% of the CPU utilization. Even when the number of users is less, we get these messages. I am trying to resolve it, but it is not going. It is annoying. It is not a failure, but I hope that it will be resolved. 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.
Read full review
SrinivasPakala - PeerSpot reviewer
Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available
While we are performance testing the engineering key, we need to come up with load strategies to commence the test. We'll help to monitor the test, and afterward, we'll help to make all the outcomes, and if they are new, we'll do lots and lots of interpretation and analysis across various servers, to look at response times, and impact. For example, whatever the observations we had during the test, we need to implement it. We'll have to help to catch what exactly is the issues were, and we'll help to see how they can be reduced. Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are. The solution needs better monitoring, especially of CPU.
Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"Paramterization and correlation are important features."
"LoadRunner Professional allowed us to load test potential new payroll solutions that would be implemented throughout the entire organization so that we knew which was best suited to performing well under pressure."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"The solution is quite stable."
"A very comprehensive tool that is good for performance testing."
"It has good protocol coverage."
"Scaling is definitely one of the best features of this solution. There are no issues scaling to 10,000 or 20,000 concurrent users."
More OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) pros
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
 

Cons

"Sometimes we are not be able to click on some of the buttons due to the screen mismatching and compatibility issues."
"I also use the TrueClient feature for browser-based testing. I found the TrueClient feature to be a bit difficult to use and not very user-friendly for automating scripts."
"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."
"Compared to some other vendors, there is a lack of community support."
"I would like the solution to include monitoring capacity."
"The debugging capability should be improved."
"I find that AI functionality in OpenText LoadRunner Professional should be improved and more accessible; if we get a chance to work with that, then we can check how much it helps."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
More OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) cons
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"The pricing could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing is on a yearly basis and is relatively expensive."
"I don't know the licensing cost, but I think that you would get a discount for normal usage. I think there are different yearly options for different types of usage. It is not only how many users, but also whether it is shareable or not and other criteria involved in each feature. There are additional fees for the users and hardware linked to the processing."
"It is a high-cost investment, particularly for companies with small budgets or limited testing needs."
"I would still consider LoadRunner as an expensive tool and you get a LoadRunner and the Performance Center."
"The pricing model and the software licensing model could be better."
"There is an annual license required to use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional. There are not any additional costs other than the licensing fees to use it."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of users."
"When you compare the cost of other tools such as NeoLoad and LoadNinja, the cost of LoadRunner is on the expensive side. As a result, we are currently considering going with NeoLoad."
More OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) pricing and cost advice
"Our licensing fees are on a yearly basis, and while I think that the price is quite reasonable I am not allowed to share those details."
"We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."
report
See which vendors are best for you
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
See recommendations
867,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
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…
Read full review
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Retailer
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise66
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise10
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
When designing a workload model offers a good range of possibilities for creating goal-oriented scenarios, which helps us understand and meet SLAs.
See all answers
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
The pricing should be reduced and made more competitive.
See all answers
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
I would like to improve OpenText LoadRunner Professional based on what we discussed in our last discussion, as those points remain similar and applicable. For future updates, I would like to see th...
See all answers
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Silk Test?
The pricing depends on the license used. The pricing is similar to others in the market.
See all answers
What needs improvement with Silk Test?
The pricing could be improved.
See all answers
What is your primary use case for Silk Test?
The product is used for manual, functional, and performance testing. I'm using the tool for loading data into ERP systems.
See all answers
 

Comparisons

Tricentis NeoLoad vs OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) Logo
Tricentis NeoLoad vs OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)
Compared 21% of the time
OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) vs OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) Logo
OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) vs OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)
Compared 13% of the time
Apache JMeter vs OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) Logo
Apache JMeter vs OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)
Compared 10% of the time
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) Logo
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)
Compared 6% of the time
ReadyAPI Performance vs OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) Logo
ReadyAPI Performance vs OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)
Compared 5% of the time
More OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) Competitors
OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 39% of the time
Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 19% of the time
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 13% of the time
ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 11% of the time
Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 10% of the time
More OpenText Silk Test Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)
August 2025
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) reportDownload OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Silk Test
August 2025
OpenText Silk Test reportDownload OpenText Silk Test product report
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
 

Overview

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering, known as LoadRunner Professional, stands out with its powerful scripting tool, flexible capabilities, and extensive analytics, supporting numerous concurrent users for impactful load testing.

This performance engineering tool offers integration across systems and strong community support, paired with user-friendly interfaces. It excels in features like multi-protocol support, auto-correlation, and detailed reporting. However, improvements are needed in user-friendliness and cost-effectiveness, as scripting remains complex and pricing is a hurdle. Enhancing mobile and SPA testing capabilities, modern protocol support, and compatibility with non-Windows platforms would greatly benefit users while expanding monitoring and technical support responsiveness.

What are the key features of OpenText LoadRunner Professional?
  • Powerful Scripting Tool: Facilitates complex load testing scenarios.
  • Flexible Engine: Supports various test configurations.
  • Multi-Protocol Support: Ensures broad compatibility.
  • Extensive Analytics: Provides real-time performance stats.
  • Concurrent User Simulation: Enables robust load testing.
  • Auto-Correlation: Simplifies script creation.
  • Comprehensive Reporting: Offers detailed insights.
What benefits should users expect from LoadRunner Professional?
  • Enhanced System Performance: Identifies and rectifies bottlenecks.
  • Cost Efficiency: Strategic use can reduce overall costs.
  • Industry Compatibility: Adapts to diverse environments.
  • Scalability: Supports applications with varied user loads.
  • Performance Benchmarking: Ensures optimal application performance.

LoadRunner Professional is employed for performance and load testing across sectors such as banking, hospitality, and telecommunications. Users simulate business transactions and test applications under different user loads, focusing on API testing, web applications, and benchmarking to achieve optimal performance in complex scenarios.

OpenText
SilkTest is robust and portable test automation for web, native, and enterprise software applications. Silk Test's portability enables users to test applications more effectively with lower complexity and cost in comparison to other functional testing tools on the market. Silk Test's role based testing enables business stakeholders, QA engineers, and developers to contribute to the whole automation testing process, which drives collaboration and increases the effectiveness of software testing.
OpenText
 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Buyer's Guide
Performance Testing Tools
September 2025
Download Free Report
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Perforce, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: September 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
867,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.

We monitor all Performance Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.