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

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs ReadyAPI comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.3
LoadRunner Professional offers strong ROI with reduced downtime, improved performance, and cost savings, justifying its initial investment.
Sentiment score
7.8
ReadyAPI provides significant ROI through cost savings, efficient testing, and integration capabilities, making it valuable despite deployment challenges.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.1
OpenText LoadRunner Professional support varies, with mixed feedback on responsiveness; community forums are often used for assistance.
Sentiment score
6.6
ReadyAPI receives mixed feedback on customer service with varying response times, praised community help, and documentation inconsistencies.
If I need to rate support from one to ten, I would say it is a nine.
SmartBear had an ALM tool that helped manage project documentation, including Jira-related specifications, test plans, and test cases.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText LoadRunner Professional provides scalable testing with high user counts, diverse protocols, but may require careful consideration of resource needs.
Sentiment score
6.8
ReadyAPI offers scalable API management for large operations, though cloud migration and flexibility improvements are needed for easier use.
I rate ReadyAPI between five to six for scalability due to complexities associated with scripting.
ReadyAPI's performance testing capabilities can impact API scalability assessments.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering is highly stable and reliable, preferred over other tools despite minor bugs.
Sentiment score
7.2
ReadyAPI offers stability with occasional bugs; users appreciate its reliability, especially post-configuration, aided by regular updates.
Once all configurations and preparations are done, it is very stable.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText LoadRunner Professional is expensive and complex, needing simplification, better integration, automation, and enhanced reporting features.
ReadyAPI users seek improved integration, performance, UI, version control, scalability, cloud support, security testing, and automation capabilities.
I find that AI functionality in OpenText LoadRunner Professional should be improved and more accessible.
One issue I found with ReadyAPI is related to event listeners compared to JMeter or SoapUI.
I'm considering the use of AWS and its Lambda functionalities prepared by the vendor.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText LoadRunner Professional offers flexible scaling and support but may be costly compared to competitors due to additional user fees.
ReadyAPI offers flexible enterprise pricing from $1,000-$6,000 annually, cost-effective for functional testing and service virtualization.
Currently, we don't extensively use the performance testing due to license costs.
The pricing of ReadyAPI is reasonable, considering its functionality compared to other tools in the market.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText LoadRunner Professional offers robust scripting, analytics, diverse protocol support, and advanced scaling for efficient performance testing.
ReadyAPI simplifies API testing with CI/CD integration, scripting, tool compatibility, drag-and-drop, and robust reporting features.
The most valuable feature of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is the analysis part that is really good, along with the support for multiple protocols.
It also aids in faster feedback to developers, allowing them to implement developments in a sprint without the need for extensive testing afterwards, thus improving our time to market metrics.
ReadyAPI is valuable for web service automation and allowing us to generate test cases and automate processes.
I consider ReadyAPI a cost-effective solution because it covers three verticals without needing to purchase separate tools for security, performance, or functional testing.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Professional Perfo...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (4th)
ReadyAPI
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
7th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (16th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is 13.9%, up from 13.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI is 2.8%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance 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.
Walter Wirch - PeerSpot reviewer
Seamless integration with cloud environments supports backend projects while seeking AWS Lambda enhancements
ReadyAPI enhances my workflows by allowing us to use Docker containers based on the ReadyAPI test runner. It helps extend our functional tests, even though we are not heavily using performance testing. It supports a wide range of protocols such as Kafka and GRPC, depending on the project. It also aids in faster feedback to developers, allowing them to implement developments in a sprint without the need for extensive testing afterwards, thus improving our time to market metrics.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
857,688 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
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Computer Software Company
15%
Insurance Company
9%
Healthcare Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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...
What do you like most about ReadyAPI?
The performance testing capabilities are very good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ReadyAPI?
Currently, we don't extensively use the performance testing due to license costs. License prices can be a factor in considering which technologies to adopt.
What needs improvement with ReadyAPI?
In native teams and cloud environments, there is room for improvement. I'm considering the use of AWS and its Lambda functionalities prepared by the vendor. These are more so points from my wishlis...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
Ready API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Healthcare Data Solutions (HDS)
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs. ReadyAPI and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
857,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.