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

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs RadView WebLOAD 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
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
85
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
RadView WebLOAD
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
12th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
13th
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 June 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is 6.4%, up from 5.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RadView WebLOAD is 3.4%, up from 1.5% 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)6.4%
RadView WebLOAD3.4%
Other90.2%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2668566 - PeerSpot reviewer
Founder & Chief Executive Officer at a tech vendor with 11-50 employees
Ensures high performance and adaptability while providing room for improved analytics and support
The analytics and reporting features can be improved, though they are good enough. If you have expertise, you can manage with what is included. However, it could be much better, especially with modern AI capabilities. When considering areas for improvement in OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise), there is a need for automated analysis and code-level support.
it_user1265766 - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Team Lead at Medtronic, Inc.
IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process but the reporting is complicated
You pay for the number of users that you're going to be utilizing. In order to scale up, you would have to pay for additional users, but for our use case, we're able to scale fairly easily. We have a license for 500, but we're using half of that for our initial workflow. For maintenance, as far as I'm aware, there's only one person really working on the maintenance of it and we only really have one user consistently using the software. He's a QA person. We don't have any plans to increase our usage. Even though we've had it for a while, we have a major push to start utilizing it more. I imagine we'll probably be using it and utilizing it across our QA team in the next year. We're in the process of determining whether we're going to keep it or not due to the fact that it is so expensive. That's why I've been researching alternatives for the RadView.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We can book load generators."
"The initial setup was straightforward. I was able to download everything myself without any IT support."
"Performance Center, in our company, is used for important applications where we have a lot of users, or special needs for performance that are important."
"This is a product that has a lot of capabilities and is the most mature tool of its kind in the market."
"The most valuable feature is the Vuser protocols."
"HP has very masterfully re-engineered this tool and integrated it with Application Lifecycle Management to create one of the most seamless project management suites I've used in years."
"The product is very user-friendly."
"​Probably its prime advantage, it provides a centralized location for testing."
"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."
"Technical support has been excellent, responsive, and helpful in trying to work through issues and questions."
"They are the best of all of the vendors I deal with, hands down."
"The tool itself is very viable for us."
"The analytics pack is probably one of the most powerful tools that I've seen."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting; it is interesting, intuitive, and we can do some parameterization."
"The solution is simple and useful."
 

Cons

"The cost of the solution is high and can be improved."
"I think some enhanced support, be it online or documentation, would be appreciated."
"Mobility, I think, is the biggest for us right now."
"Unfortunately, technical support is not as good as it used to be. From an end-user perspective, coming from both me and several of my team members, we have found that over the last year and a half, the quality of support has gone down a couple of notches."
"On the newer versions, I think the bleeding edge is still being worked on."
"Reporting should be simpler in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise."
"From time to time, we encounter bugs that are unexpected from a 20-plus years old solution."
"I think the integrations could be a little bit more slick. The integration with third-party tools needs to be stepped up a little bit."
"I would like to be able to edit a scenario instead of re-recording a scenario."
"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."
"We did have an issue with some of the script working incorrectly in our higher environments."
"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."
"They can improve in the reporting - the ability to generate custom reports."
"It would be great, in addition to the load tool, it would be nice, if Radview offered a JavaScript based functional test tool as well."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We used the Professional version and then moved to the enterprise version. We have subscribed to 1000 user licenses. The tool will be super expensive if we take up 5,000 user licenses. We have to limit ourselves on testing."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's price is high."
"The price is really steep. It's an enterprise-level tool."
"This solution can be expensive."
"We are content with the pricing and find it to be reasonable in terms of value for money."
"The price of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise could improve, it is expensive."
"We got an 80 percent discount for the product. It was cost-effective, but licenses tend to get expensive."
"ROI is 200%."
"We purchased a license for two years."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Marketing Services Firm
8%
Performing Arts
14%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise74
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Large Enterprise10
 

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 negative sides or areas for improvement, I do not see any disadvantages so far. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) might have some drawbacks, but I did no...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
I always consider the purposes and use cases from an enterprise version perspective as a user of the product.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
GoDaddy, Praxair, DeVry University and the College Board.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. RadView WebLOAD and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.