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 OpenText Silk Test 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:
 

Mindshare comparison

Performance Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise)5.8%
Apache JMeter16.4%
Tricentis NeoLoad13.8%
Other64.0%
Performance Testing Tools
Performance Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)13.7%
Apache JMeter16.4%
Tricentis NeoLoad13.8%
Other56.1%
Performance Testing Tools
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Silk Test1.1%
Tricentis Tosca18.5%
BrowserStack10.2%
Other70.2%
Functional 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.
SrinivasPakala - PeerSpot reviewer
Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available
While we are performance testing the engineering key, we need to come up with load strategies to commence the test. We'll help to monitor the test, and afterward, we'll help to make all the outcomes, and if they are new, we'll do lots and lots of interpretation and analysis across various servers, to look at response times, and impact. For example, whatever the observations we had during the test, we need to implement it. We'll have to help to catch what exactly is the issues were, and we'll help to see how they can be reduced. Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are. The solution needs better monitoring, especially of CPU.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is mostly user-friendly and usable."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to use and has flexibility that allows it to be used on a variety of applications."
"The product is good, and the concept is good as well."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting, correlations, and parameterization. Debugging is also easy."
"Our main use case for the product was load and stress testing. It helped us put the system under stress by injecting in multiple users, such as 5,000 users."
"It offers easy integration with third-party tools like Dynatrace, Splunk, etc."
"The solution offers helpful guidelines and has good documentation."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise supports a lot of technologies. The existing performance testing that this tool is capable of is good. The protocols that are available are widely varied when compared to other performance testing tools."
"The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it."
"The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period."
"One of the most valuable features of LoadRunner Professional is the wide range of protocols it supports, especially the web user v user types."
"Enables us to test most of the products and projects that we have across all the different technologies, without having to look at other tools."
"Scaling is definitely one of the best features of this solution. There are no issues scaling to 10,000 or 20,000 concurrent users."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
 

Cons

"The process of upgrading LoadRunner can be difficult and time-consuming."
"I have seen some users report some issues, but I have personally not had any issues."
"The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and by including autocorrelation capability."
"The cost of the solution is high and can be improved."
"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."
"Offering a direct integration feature would ensure a completely smooth experience."
"I believe the data that demonstrates the automated correlations should be corrected."
"They had wanted to change the GUI to improve the look and feel. However, since that time, we see a lot of hanging issues."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
"The initial start-up of Micro Focus LoadRunner could be improved. When we add 20 or 30 scripts, the refresh is completed one by one. I would like to be able to select all the script at one time, so it can be completed in a single click, reducing the time required."
"Licensing costs could be reduced."
"In terms of resource management, you need a lot of high capacity boxes if you need to generate a load of 1,000 or 2,000 users."
"There's a reporting part of the cloud that could be improved a little bit."
"If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help."
"LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."
"The pricing could be improved."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It does everything you could hope for in a performance testing solution. It's not cheap."
"I give the cost a one out of ten."
"We got a very good deal. We are happy with that. We have 5,000 licenses."
"We got an 80 percent discount for the product. It was cost-effective, but licenses tend to get expensive."
"The price of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise could improve, it is expensive."
"ROI is 200%."
"I have not been directly involved in price negotiations but my understanding is that while the cost is a little bit high, it provides good value for the money."
"The tool is very expensive."
"For licensing, we pay a lot for it. But the incentive is the support we get with it, that we pay once, and we are set."
"The cost depends greatly on the needs of the testing engagement."
"The licensing is on a yearly basis and is relatively expensive."
"The price is a bit on the high side, but it is still affordable."
"I don't know the licensing cost, but I think that you would get a discount for normal usage. I think there are different yearly options for different types of usage. It is not only how many users, but also whether it is shareable or not and other criteria involved in each feature. There are additional fees for the users and hardware linked to the processing."
"The solution's pricing is expensive."
"The licensing model is complex. You have to pick up the protocol and the number of concurrent users, and then select the level of concurrent users. For example, there would be one price for 100 to 500 users and another for 500 to 2000 users. If you choose two protocols, then you will have to pay twice the amount depending on the number of concurrent users."
"The pricing model, especially when involving partners, could use some improvement."
"We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."
"Our licensing fees are on a yearly basis, and while I think that the price is quite reasonable I am not allowed to share those details."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
868,029 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
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise73
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise66
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise10
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Silk Test?
The pricing depends on the license used. The pricing is similar to others in the market.
What is your primary use case for Silk Test?
The product is used for manual, functional, and performance testing. I'm using the tool for loading data into ERP sys...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Perforce, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: September 2025.
868,029 professionals have used our research since 2012.