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

OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) 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 Core Performance E...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
4th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
47
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
RadView WebLOAD
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
11th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
16th
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 November 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) is 7.8%, down from 9.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RadView WebLOAD is 3.5%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud)7.8%
RadView WebLOAD3.5%
Other88.7%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Mahendra Andhale - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Manager at Happiest Minds Technologies
Centralized cloud testing has improved global load generation and real-time performance insights
The most valuable features I have found in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) are that everything is online and centralized, so I do not need to go anywhere to check the configuration and everything. OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud)'s advanced analytics help identify performance bottlenecks because whenever we are executing the test scripts, it shows a good analytics view where we can simply check which APIs are not performing well. The cloud-based load generators in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) have benefited my testing setup because we can generate the load across the globe, which was previously a little bit difficult on the on-premises version. The user interface in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) is intuitive and this will be easy to communicate and collaborate amongst the team also because sharing the online URL with the team, they can simply check the analysis and everything.
Vadim Urintsov - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Tester / Quality Assurance Analyst at Bitnami
An excellent solution for graph testing on programming software
Our primary use case for the solution is for graph testing on programming software The information provided via the solution and the dashboard is valuable. Additionally, it's interesting as you can view inside information integrated and see the WebLOAD with APM. There is no analytical dashboard…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"StormRunner does the job in a very simple and cost effective way."
"The most valuable feature is that we do not have to accommodate the load-testing infrastructure in our own data center."
"The TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud can scale in a cloud-based environment to support up to ten thousand concurrent users without capacity loss, which is not possible with on-premise solutions on personal machines."
"Even though the cost is expensive, there are good features when compared to all other tools."
"I rate OpenText LoadRunner Cloud ten out of ten."
"The fact that the solution supports multiple protocols such as open source, VuGen, TruWeb, TruClient, and SAP is very important because these protocols help us to concentrate on what is really needed to produce performance tests. If something is not supported, you have to use other tools or find other ways of assimilating loads."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to configure browser settings for different operating systems and on different versions without the need to install every single version on each machine and to manage them."
"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."
"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"The solution is simple and useful."
"The tool itself is very viable for us."
"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 most valuable feature of this solution is reporting; it is interesting, intuitive, and we can do some parameterization."
"The ability to conceptualize the experience for users is great, the price as the bang for your buck is good, the user interface is quite user friendly, and the graphics make it easy to follow and are easy to identify."
 

Cons

"The cloud configuration setup and server access can be tricky, as we don't usually get direct access."
"I'd like to see more ability to dive more deeply into the configuration."
"This vendor, Micro Focus, is not very good at technical support."
"The product price could be more affordable."
"I think the product is still immature because we have some problem reaching the mobile center connection related to a proper configuration on our machine."
"I would like for there to be better integration with other tools so that when you do load testing you can also do a security check."
"We encounter hurdles while running the professional version for on-premise setup."
"The support team provides delayed responses."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
"When it finds a problem with response times, it doesn't specify exactly where the problem actually is."
"We have had a lot of trouble with this solution, and it is actually adapted to our application."
"There is no analytical dashboard."
"Well there’s one issue when I have five or six scripts-- you have to set up different percentages and the number of connections and users, no matter how I tweak it seems that when I have one of the load scripts in the mix set, a percentage of less than 8-10%, there’s a probability that it won’t run at all."
"I would like to be able to edit a scenario instead of re-recording a scenario."
"They can improve in the reporting - the ability to generate custom reports."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is neither costly nor cheap. It is not too high and not too low. I know the price of other tools, and LoadRunner Cloud's price is in the medium range."
"We make use of virtual user hours. We buy time in the LoadRunner Cloud. It costs around $80,000."
"LoadRunner always had expensive pricing. At my company, we used to evaluate LoadRunner, but we stuck with Silk Performer because its pricing was always better in the past. I do feel that I got a fair deal this time. Our value-added reseller and our sales guy worked hard to give us a fair deal. I feel that we got a fair deal. We did not go for the pay-as-you-go deal. I did an upfront package. I prefer that. I want to know what my costs are."
"The solution’s price is considerably high."
"Pricing is dependent on what you're referring to. If you're talking about the cloud, it's likely competitive. However, if you're talking about the on-premise version, professional or enterprise licenses are required. Prices are on the high side. They are not cheap."
"The pricing is very reasonable and the licensing is straightforward."
"It's a very expensive solution"
"There is no monthly or yearly cost but rather, the fees are based on the amount of traffic that you use."
"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.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
13%
Construction Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Performing Arts
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise30
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Large Enterprise10
 

Questions from the Community

Do you recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
I absolutely recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud. In fact, I consider it to be one of the best performance testing tools. I like it because it provides many benefits. Some of the ones I find to...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing shows it is very high and very costly.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) can be improved by incorporating code improvements. I would add that it reduces the initial setup complexity, improves the learning curve op...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud, StormRunner Load, LoadRunner Cloud, and Micro Focus StormRunner Load
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Alfa Bank, N Brown Group, University of Copenhagen, McGraw-Hill, Cognizant
GoDaddy, Praxair, DeVry University and the College Board.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) vs. RadView WebLOAD and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.