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

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs Tricentis Flood comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 13, 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 Load Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
83
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (5th)
Tricentis Flood
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
16th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is 5.3%, down from 7.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Flood is 1.6%, up from 1.3% 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.
Test Process Consultant - PeerSpot reviewer
Need improvements ,but has cloud and on-premises options
The solution is not in an optimal state. During POC, we analyzed tool is kept on upgrading. The patch deployment is happening in parallel, things that are working today are not working tomorrow. We eventually sorted it out with help of CSM. We integrated this tool with other software such as Azure client, but many times without a valid or visible reason, the connectivity was breaking. Improvement suggestions- The dashboard creation for the reporting needs to be easier. Currently, the solution does not support multiple script executions and we would like to see support for this.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product is good, and the concept is good as well."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's best feature is the detailed reporting structure."
"This is a product that has a lot of capabilities and is the most mature tool of its kind in the market."
"The tool is very easy to set up and get running."
"Support is nice, quick, and responsive."
"Creating the script is very easy and user friendly."
"We can measure metrics like hits per second and detect deviations or issues through graphs. We can filter out response times based on timings and identify spikes in the database or AWS reports."
"Provides the performance of load test applications and reliably on good reporting."
"You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
"Their technical support is awesome."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
 

Cons

"It's not that popular on the cloud."
"We'd like the product to include protocol identifiers whenever a tester wants to test a new application."
"The reporting has room for improvement."
"The cost of the solution is high and can be improved."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise doesn't support some mainframe protocols. We had to build scripts to access the interface."
"Micro Focus's technical support could be more responsive."
"The solution is expensive."
"Sometimes, the code is not generated when we record the scripts in the backend."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"We used an implementation strategy to deploy the solution, not because of the tools, but mainly because of the scripting part of the tool."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
 

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."
"ROI is 200%."
"The price is a bit too high."
"It is a bit expensive, especially for smaller organizations, but over-all it can save you money."
"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."
"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 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."
"This solution is in the average price range compared to other testing tools."
"The only positive point is it came free with my test automation tool."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
849,963 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
19%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
20%
Real Estate/Law Firm
9%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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...
Do you recommend Tricentis Flood?
Tricentis Flood is the kind of versatile load and performance testing solution that my organization and I cannot help but recommend. It is recognized by companies across a wide variety of fields as...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
Flood IO
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
Nike, heroku, Soulcycle, NEC, boston.com, Typeform, Xero, Telus
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. Tricentis Flood and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,963 professionals have used our research since 2012.