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

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs ReadyAPI 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
7.5
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering enhances reliability, reduces downtime, prevents crashes, and offers a 200% ROI by identifying system issues early.
Sentiment score
6.8
LoadRunner Professional offers strong ROI with reduced downtime, improved performance, and cost savings, justifying its initial investment.
Sentiment score
7.8
ReadyAPI delivers efficient and cost-effective API testing, integrating seamlessly, reducing effort, and providing significant value for enterprises.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering's support quality varies, with experiences ranging from excellent service to slow responses and unhelpful documentation.
Sentiment score
6.0
OpenText LoadRunner Professional support varies, with mixed feedback on responsiveness; community forums are often used for assistance.
Sentiment score
6.6
ReadyAPI support is knowledgeable and prompt, but lacks phone support, causing delays, especially across time zones.
The customer service and technical support for OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is reasonable, not impressive, but provides adequate assistance.
If I need to rate support from one to ten, I would say it is a nine.
The technical support is really excellent.
SmartBear had an ALM tool that helped manage project documentation, including Jira-related specifications, test plans, and test cases.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.6
LoadRunner Enterprise scales well and flexibly, but faces challenges with memory use and license costs impacting adoption.
Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText LoadRunner Professional provides scalable testing with high user counts, diverse protocols, but may require careful consideration of resource needs.
Sentiment score
6.8
ReadyAPI is scalable and efficient for large API volumes but lacks flexibility, facing resource and team synchronization challenges.
I rate the scalability of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) as ten when using a scale from one to ten, with one being low.
We look at the scalability because we are using the SaaS model now.
I rate ReadyAPI between five to six for scalability due to complexities associated with scripting.
ReadyAPI's performance testing capabilities can impact API scalability assessments.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
LoadRunner Enterprise is generally stable but may face occasional issues due to infrastructure, version upgrades, and maintenance needs.
Sentiment score
7.7
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering is highly stable and reliable, preferred over other tools despite minor bugs.
Sentiment score
7.2
ReadyAPI is generally stable but users may encounter minor issues with larger tasks, configuration, and licensing challenges.
However, it remains quite stable.
I see it is stable, though there are some glitches or latency sometimes.
Once all configurations and preparations are done, it is very stable.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise struggles with UI, integration, reporting, support, and pricing, leading users to consider alternatives.
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is expensive and complex, needing simplification, better integration, automation, and enhanced reporting features.
Users request enhanced tool integration, performance, UI, version control, protocol support, cloud integration, and improved testing features in ReadyAPI.
It could be much better, especially with modern AI capabilities.
I find that AI functionality in OpenText LoadRunner Professional should be improved and more accessible.
One issue I found with ReadyAPI is related to event listeners compared to JMeter or SoapUI.
I'm considering the use of AWS and its Lambda functionalities prepared by the vendor.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is costly but offers value, requiring careful planning to optimize virtual user license expenses.
OpenText LoadRunner Professional offers flexible scaling and support but may be costly compared to competitors due to additional user fees.
ReadyAPI offers flexible pricing from $1,000 to $6,000 annually, praised for comprehensive API solutions and modular licensing.
It is neither cheap nor expensive.
Currently, we don't extensively use the performance testing due to license costs.
The pricing of ReadyAPI is reasonable, considering its functionality compared to other tools in the market.
 

Valuable Features

LoadRunner Enterprise enhances testing efficiency with scalability, advanced reporting, integration, and real-time analysis, benefiting global application performance management.
OpenText LoadRunner Professional offers robust scripting, analytics, diverse protocol support, and advanced scaling for efficient performance testing.
ReadyAPI excels in API testing with user-friendly features, strong integration, smart assertions, and comprehensive performance and security capabilities.
The best features of this solution are easy scripting and broad platform support.
The most valuable feature of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is the analysis part that is really good, along with the support for multiple protocols.
Overall, the installation was quite easy since OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is SaaS-based.
It also aids in faster feedback to developers, allowing them to implement developments in a sprint without the need for extensive testing afterwards, thus improving our time to market metrics.
I consider ReadyAPI a cost-effective solution because it covers three verticals without needing to purchase separate tools for security, performance, or functional testing.
ReadyAPI is valuable for web service automation and allowing us to generate test cases and automate processes.
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is 5.8%, down from 6.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is 13.7%, up from 12.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI is 2.9%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)13.7%
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise)5.8%
ReadyAPI2.9%
Other77.6%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

VictorHorescu - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to test almost every tool in the companies I enter and performs well in a distributed environment
It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems. In real time, when they ask for 5,000 or 10,000 concurrent users, I have to provision a lot of virtual machines to define this load. Then there are situations with certain platforms, especially document management platforms, where the technology is so weird that normal LoadRunner protocols cannot detect it. So, in that case, I have to use that special TruClient protocol. I have to use the TruClient protocol, which actually clicks on the object. Despite the SQL technology, I can still create a script and test for performance. So what I would appreciate a lot is if this protocol would require less resources on a normal virtual machine. I can use fewer concurrent users with TruClient protocols as opposed to almost one hundred with HTTP/HTML. As opposed to many more with HTTP/HTML from, let's say, JMeter. So, optimization at that level for resource consumption by OpenText would be much appreciated.
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.
Walter Wirch - PeerSpot reviewer
Seamless integration with cloud environments supports backend projects while seeking AWS Lambda enhancements
ReadyAPI enhances my workflows by allowing us to use Docker containers based on the ReadyAPI test runner. It helps extend our functional tests, even though we are not heavily using performance testing. It supports a wide range of protocols such as Kafka and GRPC, depending on the project. It also aids in faster feedback to developers, allowing them to implement developments in a sprint without the need for extensive testing afterwards, thus improving our time to market metrics.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
867,676 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…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
23%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
15%
Insurance Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise74
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise66
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise28
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
Now that LoadRunner integrates with Dynatrace and other monitoring tools, it simplifies the process of integration in...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
The price of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise), including pricing, licensing, and s...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
The analytics and reporting features can be improved, though they are good enough. If you have expertise, you can man...
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 help...
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 ...
What do you like most about ReadyAPI?
The performance testing capabilities are very good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ReadyAPI?
Currently, we don't extensively use the performance testing due to license costs. License prices can be a factor in c...
What needs improvement with ReadyAPI?
One issue I found with ReadyAPI is related to event listeners compared to JMeter or SoapUI. We created an in-house da...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
Ready API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Healthcare Data Solutions (HDS)
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Perforce, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: September 2025.
867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.