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

OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) vs Selenium HQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.4
Users report cost savings and improved clarity with OpenText Core Performance Engineering, citing significant annual reductions in testing expenses.
Sentiment score
7.6
Selenium HQ reduces testing time, achieves 60% ROI, requires Java developers, and improves efficiency up to 55% in a week.
The ROI is not necessarily cost savings. Sometimes a customer wants to use OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, or it's the only tool that will solve the problem depending on the application.
LoadRunner Cloud helps with risk elimination by reducing performance degradation in production, ensuring a better end-user experience.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.4
Opinions on OpenText Core Performance Engineering's support are mixed, with praise for customer service but issues with response times.
Sentiment score
6.1
Selenium HQ offers no direct support; users rely on community forums and online resources for assistance with issues.
I faced issues with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud support when a problem took three to four months to resolve, which negatively impacted our project, especially when key team members were unavailable during leave periods.
It's important to note that OpenText has recently taken over Micro Focus.
The marketplace community and forums are what we browse and look after, and we have found solutions whenever we tried to find anything.
I have not had the need to escalate questions to Selenium HQ tech support recently, as open community support is widely available and has been sufficient for our needs.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
OpenText Core Performance Engineering scales efficiently for varied needs, handling up to two million users, with notable flexibility and support.
Sentiment score
7.5
Selenium HQ is scalable with technical expertise, enabling parallel testing, but scalability varies by framework design.
It is very scalable, and on the cloud, it's even more scalable, potentially unlimited.
With load generators available, it is easily scalable to meet our needs.
As a small company, we primarily test 1,500 concurrent users and sometimes face issues such as load balancer problems.
We can execute thousands of test cases weekly, and our automation coverage using Selenium HQ is approximately eighty-five percent.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
<p>OpenText Core Performance Engineering is reliable with minor issues, quickly resolved by responsive R&amp;D and customer support teams.</p>
Sentiment score
7.1
Selenium HQ is generally stable but faces issues with Internet Explorer and new browsers needing maintenance and proper test architecture.
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is extremely stable for our use case.
Selenium HQ is a scalable solution; it has been in production for the last two years, but I have been working on it for the last six years, so it is definitely scalable.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText Core Performance Engineering struggles with load patterns, reporting, network simulation, support speed, UI design, and agile integration.
Users want better browser support, integration, simplified setup, clearer documentation, auto-healing, AJAX improvement, and frequent updates.
The technical personnel are not able to fix issues quickly, which becomes problematic during critical situations.
It would also be convenient if there were options to convert scripts from competitor tools like NeoLoad to LoadRunner.
I expect an improvement in the cloud location offering to better serve local applications, particularly to enhance testing accuracy for users in regions like Thailand.
An automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
I don't know if we have that capability to provide different data sources such as SQL Server, CSV, or maybe some other databases, so that kind of capability would be great.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText Core Performance Engineering provides flexible, usage-based pricing, supporting multiple protocols, justifying costs for enterprise-level performance testing.
Selenium is open-source and free, but setup and maintenance may require investment in developer skills and expertise.
It's delivering functionality, but we also use JMeter, which is free.
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud pricing is flexible, offering a more affordable solution compared to the more expensive on-premise LoadRunner.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText Core Performance Engineering offers scalable, easy-to-use load testing with integration, automation, anomaly detection, and no maintenance required.
Selenium HQ offers cost-free, open-source cross-browser testing, supports multiple languages, frameworks, and facilitates integration with CI tools.
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.
We can monitor CPU and memory utilization, and response times.
Another valuable aspect is the option to use JMX files, similar to JMeter scripts, with LoadRunner.
Selenium HQ supports multiple browsers via grid hosting and offers dynamic configuration setup for testing across Chrome, Edge, and Internet Explorer.
When we were doing these tests manually, it took several hours of effort, and those hours, when counted on the basis of person days, used to be maybe six or seven months of effort, which we can now do every day by running the pipeline.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Core Performance E...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
45
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (6th), Load Testing Tools (6th)
Selenium HQ
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
112
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (6th), Regression Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) is designed for Performance Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 9.6%, up 9.0% compared to last year.
Selenium HQ, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 3.6% mindshare, down 5.0% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Jyoti Ranjan Behera - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly features facilitate monitoring while support could be more responsive
I am satisfied with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud as a product, but the ticket resolution time is concerning. The technical personnel are not able to fix issues quickly, which becomes problematic during critical situations. Compared to previous support, I notice that while experts previously resolved issues immediately, current experts take more time to resolve issues, which is the main challenge we are facing. They are now lacking regional support, which takes more time than it used to. My suggestions for improvements to OpenText LoadRunner Cloud would be to have specific experts available who can resolve issues more quickly, as delays can impact project timelines significantly.
Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation in testing processes sees improvement with multi-browser support and easier website interactions
Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks. The tool could simplify object identification, enabling users to generate XPaths without requiring detailed DOM understanding. Additionally, an automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
859,957 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
16%
Government
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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 do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud pricing is flexible, offering a more affordable solution compared to the more expensive on-premise LoadRunner. The hourly usage model allows cost-saving when used rightly.
How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
I will give an eight for my satisfaction with the pricing and licensing costs of Selenium HQ.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud, StormRunner Load, LoadRunner Cloud, and Micro Focus StormRunner Load
SeleniumHQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Alfa Bank, N Brown Group, University of Copenhagen, McGraw-Hill, Cognizant
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Perforce, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: May 2025.
859,957 professionals have used our research since 2012.