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

OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs Tricentis Flood comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 6, 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 LoadRunner Profess...
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (4th)
Tricentis Flood
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
14th
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 June 2025, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is 12.7%, down from 13.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Flood is 1.6%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
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

"Paramterization and correlation are important features."
"LoadRunner Professional allowed us to load test potential new payroll solutions that would be implemented throughout the entire organization so that we knew which was best suited to performing well under pressure."
"The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"The capabilities and flexibility of the Controller, the ability to monitor the systems under test, and the comprehensive results Analysis which saves a great deal of time."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"The most valuable feature depends on what we're doing at the time. In the past, the greatest feature was the ability to record and play back to produce a script. Another great feature is that we can monitor the system. They also support many protocols to perform load testing."
"The implementation was very straightforward and not an issue."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"Their technical support is awesome."
"You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
 

Cons

"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"I find that AI functionality in OpenText LoadRunner Professional should be improved and more accessible; if we get a chance to work with that, then we can check how much it helps."
"Sometimes, we aren't able to see an accurate page view while replying and executing the script. When you are navigating the application side by side, it needs to be displayed on a random viewer. Sometimes we will get a few applications, and we won't get others."
"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."
"The flexibility could be improved."
"LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved."
"If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help."
"The only scenario we see a complexity is when we have single-page applications where JavaScript is talking to the server and coming back. That's the only scenario where we find some difficulties."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
"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 solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's pricing is expensive."
"The licensing is on a yearly basis and is relatively expensive."
"The licensing of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. If it can be easier and the concurrent run can be included with the current total number of users, it would be helpful."
"The cost depends greatly on the needs of the testing engagement."
"There is a licensing cost that is expensive."
"It is competing with other products that may cost significantly less or may be available as open-source. Because of that it is relatively expensive."
"The pricing model, especially when involving partners, could use some improvement."
"When you compare the cost of other tools such as NeoLoad and LoadNinja, the cost of LoadRunner is on the expensive side. As a result, we are currently considering going with NeoLoad."
"The only positive point is it came free with my test automation tool."
"This solution is in the average price range compared to other testing tools."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
857,162 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
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
20%
Real Estate/Law Firm
9%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
Government
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 Professional?
When designing a workload model offers a good range of possibilities for creating goal-oriented scenarios, which helps us understand and meet SLAs.
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 points remain similar and applicable. For future updates, I would like to see th...
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 Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
Flood IO
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Nike, heroku, Soulcycle, NEC, boston.com, Typeform, Xero, Telus
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs. Tricentis Flood and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
857,162 professionals have used our research since 2012.