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

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs ReadyAPI Performance comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on May 18, 2025

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
5th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
84
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ReadyAPI Performance
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
10th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is 5.3%, down from 6.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI Performance is 1.6%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load 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.
Mahendra Andhale - PeerSpot reviewer
Open-source and flexible but needs client-side scripting
It's an open-source tool and supports a lot of plugins and custom code, which allows integration with other tools like Azure and AWS. Also, the APIs tested with SoapUI can be directly used, avoiding the need to create collections like in Postman. The client-side scripting, if incorporated, would provide a complete solution for performance tests. It can handle user distribution and transaction throughput distribution effectively.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I have seen an ROI from this tool, as it provides enormous value; it ensures that you are not setting yourself up for failure and functions as an insurance."
"​Probably its prime advantage, it provides a centralized location for testing."
"What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"You can test a huge variety of applications, not just web-based systems, but SAP, Oracle, web services, pretty much anything out in the market place, but it's mobile-based testing."
"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."
"Provides the performance of load test applications and reliably on good reporting."
"The solution does support a wide range of technologies and protocols. Plus, two features, network virtualization, and service virtualization, are really helpful. Apart from that, the way they have their billing scenarios, like the execution, is very good."
"he initial deployment process is easy."
"It's like a centralized interface that allows us to increase the quality of our APIs."
"We find the product to be scalable."
"We can scale."
"ReadyAPI automation can help us validate the functionality of most web services, allowing us to find out the exact number of defects before deployment to the user interface."
"It's an open-source tool and supports a lot of plugins and custom code, which allows integration with other tools like Azure and AWS."
"It stores good reports, as in, improved reports if compared with the SoapUI. It also has in-built security. You just need to switch and check the security testing. My team has never used it, but I know ReadyAPI provides those facilities as well."
"The performance and reporting of this solution have been its most valuable features."
 

Cons

"The solution is a very expensive tool when compared with other tools."
"Canned reports are always a challenge and a question with customers because customers want to see sexy reports."
"Integration can be tricky during the setup process."
"The price of this solution could be less expensive. However, this category of solutions is expensive."
"While the stability is generally good, there are a few strange issues that crop up unexpectedly which affect consistent use of the product."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, I need to spend a lot of time training people, while on other low-code or no-code platforms, I need not invest that much time."
"The debugging feature needs to include graphs."
"The support team needs to be more coordinated."
"It is very slow sometimes."
"I'd not sure if they have the same level of documentation for performance and security testing."
"I want the solution to be able to monitor Apache Kafka activity as well."
"This is an area for improvement with the tool. We unnecessarily use JMeter for some website testing, which we would like to avoid by introducing this tool for API and load testing because it provides load testing features."
"The solution’s interface could be improved."
"The client-side scripting mostly isn't needed for performance testing, however, if implemented, it would enhance the tool."
"We need some time to understand and configure the solution."
"This solution could be improved by offering artificial AI testing in addition to API testing. For example, we would like to have machine learning testing because when test applications, manual work could be completed automatically using this functionality."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"For Performance Center, you have to add additional load generators, and then you can do more. I think it is a matter of the price, in terms of how many machines you can buy."
"It is a bit expensive, especially for smaller organizations, but over-all it can save you money."
"The solution should decrease its price."
"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."
"I give the cost a one out of ten."
"We purchased the license via SAP."
"We are content with the pricing and find it to be reasonable in terms of value for money."
"There is an ROI. What LoadRunner does, is it prevents failures when there are many, many concurrent users in the systems of a company."
"We find the cost to be affordable."
"ReadyAPI Performance’s pricing is reasonable."
"This solution operates on a licence basis and the usage and cost varies according to the use case. It is more expensive if you include access to the learning center. On average it costs approximately 800 Euros."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
864,155 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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 into a company, taking merely five minutes to set up. This ease of integration a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
In 2019, I was dealing with the costs of LoadRunner. While I don't remember the exact figures, JMeter being free and RPT being cheaper makes them attractive. The high cost of LoadRunner, in contras...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
While I don't see any issues with LoadRunner's functionality, the cost of the tool is a major factor. Many of my customers have had to switch to different tools due to the cost of LoadRunner, despi...
What do you like most about ReadyAPI Performance?
It's like a centralized interface that allows us to increase the quality of our APIs.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ReadyAPI Performance?
Load UI is mostly free, and the pricing for the pro version is very affordable compared to other tools like LoadRunner.
What needs improvement with ReadyAPI Performance?
The client-side scripting mostly isn't needed for performance testing, however, if implemented, it would enhance the tool.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
LoadUI NG Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
Mercedes-Benz, Adobe, Hilton Hotels, The Home Depot
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. ReadyAPI Performance and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
864,155 professionals have used our research since 2012.