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

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs Telerik Test Studio 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 Load Testing Tools
6th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
85
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (6th)
Telerik Test Studio
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (23rd), Regression Testing Tools (12th), Test Automation Tools (23rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is 6.4%, up from 5.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 2.7%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise)6.4%
Telerik Test Studio2.7%
Other90.9%
Load 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.
Raghvendra Jyothi - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager Project Management at Capgemini
Very good performance and load testing capabilities
There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The tool is very easy to set up and get running."
"We have high confidence that the results are reliable, it's helped catch multiple bugs before they've gone to production, and we're able to more confidently release software into production."
"The return on investment is immeasurable."
"We are able to connect and run tests from different locations with this tool."
"What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"IP Spoofing can be done using Performance Center."
"For me, LoadRunner stands out, especially with its reporting capabilities, the graphs that can be generated, and the unique feature of measuring our application's response alongside our infrastructure metrics, such as CPU, memory, or disk usage, all presented in graph form. This is something other applications struggle to match."
"It does everything you could hope for in a performance testing solution."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"The object repository is the most valuable feature, as different elements can be identified and reutilized through the repository across other scripts, and the product has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
 

Cons

"Browser compatibility. IE is no longer the only browser out there, so providing users the choice of what browser to use would be great!"
"It is tough to maintain from the infrastructure side."
"It was a bit complex in terms of administration but we got help from technical people."
"The response time for technical support is extremely slow. They are generally not well-versed."
"Currently, when we try open LRE we encounter cookie banner issues. However, I'm not sure if it is within the enterprise solution or with the vendors."
"The cost of the solution is high and can be improved."
"Sometimes, the code is not generated when we record the scripts in the backend."
"I know there are integrations with continuous testing. It's got tie-ins to some of the newer tools to allow continuous testing. I'd love to see us not have to customize it, but for it to be out of the box."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"We have not seen a return on investment yet."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"The first time I customized the solution, it was quite challenging."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This solution can be expensive."
"ROI is 200%."
"The tool is very expensive."
"The price is really steep. It's an enterprise-level tool."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's price is high."
"It does everything you could hope for in a performance testing solution. It's not cheap."
"The price is okay. You're able to buy it, as opposed to paying for a full year."
"It is a bit expensive when compared with other tools."
"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
902,495 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%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Construction Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise74
No data available
 

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
Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. Telerik Test Studio and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,495 professionals have used our research since 2012.