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

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs Original Software Qualify 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:
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Professional Perfo...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (2nd), Load Testing Tools (2nd)
Original Software Qualify
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (31st)
 

Mindshare comparison

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) and Original Software Qualify aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is designed for Performance Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 13.6%, up 13.5% compared to last year.
Original Software Qualify, on the other hand, focuses on Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites, holds 0.9% mindshare, up 0.1% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)13.6%
Tricentis NeoLoad10.7%
Apache JMeter10.4%
Other65.30000000000001%
Performance Testing Tools
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Original Software Qualify0.9%
Jira11.2%
Microsoft Azure DevOps9.5%
Other78.4%
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

SR
Assistant Director at Synapxe
Has enabled my team to identify bottlenecks effectively and deliver reliable performance analysis across projects
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 heard of any significant issues. I can gather specific improvement suggestions from my architect and provide that information later.
Konstantinos Tasiopoulos - PeerSpot reviewer
Group Integration Tools Manager at TITAN
Flexible, multifunctional, and stable testing software with good technical support
I've been using the latest version of Original Software Qualify AQM. Over 100 users in our company use Original Software Qualify AQM. We only have two people in charge of its deployment and maintenance. This software is extensively used in our company. Personally, I recommend Original Software Qualify AQM to other people looking into implementing it. You can do a lot of things with this software. The support is very good. The communication is very good, and they also listen to problems raised. They add new features and functionalities as a response to past problems or issues. It's a very good tool and I recommend it. We've seen a return on investment from this software. I'm rating Original Software Qualify AQM a nine out of ten, because of several reasons: It's very good software, it's a supportive company, and we have very good results from it. This software also minimizes the effort of UATs, and it also allows us to deploy whatever we want.

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."
"The ability to do multithreading. That's available in any performance testing tool, but the number of protocols that this particular tool supports has been very good."
"It is a good and stable tool."
"The most important feature for us is that it supports a lot of protocols because we support all of them, including HTTP, FTP, mainframe, and others."
"Very useful for finding out how the system responds to load, stress, and normal situations, as well as benchmarking with other industry competitors, it also improved our response time, memory delegation, and CPU delegation, and we used LoadRunner to optimize our database and website."
"The stability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is very high. It is the leading tool for stability."
"I've always been impressed by the versatility and plain power of this testing tool."
"Before going into production, we use it to validate some transactions, new environments and cloud environments."
"Flexible software with multiple functions, e.g. scenario deployment, new entity creation, workflow creation, etc. Technical support for this software is very good."
"You can do a lot of things with this software; the support is very good, the communication is very good, they listen to problems raised, add new features and functionalities as a response to past problems or issues, and we have seen a return on investment from this software."
 

Cons

"Complexity. LoadRunner is not simple to learn by installing it and "doing it"."
"I would like the solution to include monitoring capacity."
"For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost."
"Sometimes we are not be able to click on some of the buttons due to the screen mismatching and compatibility issues."
"We encountered issues with stability -- the system hangs many times."
"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."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"The reporting engine of Original Software Qualify AQM needs to change. It's very difficult to develop complex reports."
"The reporting engine of Original Software Qualify AQM needs to change. It's very difficult to develop complex reports. Its reporting function needs improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user."
"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 solution's pricing is expensive."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low and ten is a high price, I rate the solution a five."
"It is reasonable. We pay the cost, but we have everything. We have a big set of licenses for SAP and other applications. We have all kinds of licenses."
"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."
"I would still consider LoadRunner as an expensive tool and you get a LoadRunner and the Performance Center."
"The licensing is on a yearly basis and is relatively expensive."
"This software is moderately priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
896,387 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
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Construction Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise67
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
I work only with the performance testing tools and not with OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) for mobile and web applications. With performance testing, I am t...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
Qualify
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
CertainTeed, Marston's,  Edrington, Ageas,  iPERS.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: May 2026.
896,387 professionals have used our research since 2012.