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

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs OpenText Silk Performer comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 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 Professional Perfo...
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (4th)
OpenText Silk Performer
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
22nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is 11.7%, down from 12.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Performer is 1.6%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)11.7%
OpenText Silk Performer1.6%
Other86.7%
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SD
Assistant Consultant at Tata Consultancy
Experience a decade of seamless performance with robust support
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 the same features that people generally prefer. 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.
SR
Principal Software Architect at OpenText
Scripting and basic test executions are good features; configuring the workload for tests is easy
In terms of areas of improvement, I would say the Silk Performance Explorer tool, which is used for monitoring and analysis, can be improved because that's where we spend most of our time when we're analyzing the test data. Any enhancements that can be provided in the monitoring sphere would be useful. When you have a large amount of data the tool struggles with it and will sometimes crash, or there may be issues with too many metrics being collected when running a test. The interface for the scripting could be more feature-rich. Integration with tools like Prometheus or Grafana where we can visualize the data would be great. As things stand, we have to use one monitoring tool to visualize data and another for visualizing the test metrics. Integration would enable us to see the metrics from Silk and correlate that with the metrics from other servers or other processes we're monitoring. It would save having to look at Silk data and server metrics separately. It's the way things are going with newer tools. I think the solution is being phased out by Micro Focus and their emphasis is focused more on LoadRunner. We haven't seen much development in the last few years.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"LoadRunner is the standard choice for performance testing before any critical applications are allowed to go live, preventing any performance issues."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation."
"It is one of the best performance testing tools available."
"The initial setup and installation of the software were very easy and straightforward."
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"The most valuable feature of LoadRunner is its ability to simulate multiple uses at the same time."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"A good monitoring tool, simple to script and easy to configure."
 

Cons

"We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly."
"Sometimes when we were migrating from one version to another, some of our scripts started failing."
"LoadRunner experiences high resource utilization. Even though we have machines with higher configurations, I've observed this behavior. Heavy traffic recording results in the tool hanging. So heavy traffic recording makes the tool slow."
"If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help."
"You should be able to use LoadRunner as a single platform. You should be able to have browser based access."
"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."
"I also use the TrueClient feature for browser-based testing. I found the TrueClient feature to be a bit difficult to use and not very user-friendly for automating scripts."
"Pricing is the only thing which make people think many times before purchasing this product."
"If you have a large amount of data, the solution can struggle."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing model and the software licensing model could be better."
"It is a high-cost investment, particularly for companies with small budgets or limited testing needs."
"LoadRunner is more expensive than some competing products."
"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."
"LoadRunner Professional is an expensive product."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of users."
"The pricing model, especially when involving partners, could use some improvement."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low and ten is a high price, I rate the solution a five."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Penetration and Neoload Tester at a university with 501-1,000 employees
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
12%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Government
6%
Healthcare Company
5%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise66
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 have mentioned many advantages about this product, but to discuss disadvantages or areas that could be improved, I would need to consult with my engineers who are working on it. So far I have not...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
Micro Focus Silk Performer, Silk Performer
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
University of Colorado, Medidata, Monash University
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, Perforce and others in Load Testing Tools. Updated: March 2026.
884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.