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

Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing vs OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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

Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Str...
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
17th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Professional Perfo...
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing is 1.6%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is 12.3%, down from 12.5% 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)12.3%
Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing1.6%
Other86.1%
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1631949 - PeerSpot reviewer
Solutions Architect ICT at a non-tech company with 10,001+ employees
User-friendly, cheap, and quick to set up
It's actually quite easy to set it up. You can change your upgrade plan at any time. The pricing is reasonable. The support was also very good. They are great at helping you set it up. Overall, it's user-friendly. I like that you can also use different servers, which I used in Europe or in different contexts. The reporting is okay. I can get notifications via email, which is nice. Everything is immediate and in real-time.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"LoadView is a flexible solution, which protects your investments."
"LoadView is a perfect cloud-based load testing tool."
"The pricing is reasonable."
"The initial setup is easy, and if you need more help, they are there to assist."
"The feature we've found most valuable for us is the number of protocols available."
"The support and the stability of those protocols are amazing."
"This is a stable product - I've dealt with it over the past 15 years and it's stable."
"The solution supports a lot of protocols."
"We don't find any features lacking. One of the most beneficial points we have from LoadRunner is we start sizing our infrastructure accordingly. So what we do is when we deploy a new workload, we do performance testing."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"It is quite a good tool, it supports a medical protocol which we tried to explore in other products but none of them had, and overall it is pretty simple and easy to use."
"In terms of ROI, LoadRunner does everything."
 

Cons

"A lot of time you start the stress testing, and you sign the log in again, and I want to get rid of that. It's just not clear to me how to do it yet."
"If I do the web application test, I want to bypass a login part."
"The solution uses a lot of memory and then it dies. It's difficult to work with the solution sometimes when you run a scenario it dies. They need to make the solution lighter somehow."
"Support for Microsoft Dynamics needs improvement."
"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."
"I think it needs to have better reporting."
"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."
"Pricing is the only thing which make people think many times before purchasing this product."
"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."
"Sometimes when we were migrating from one version to another, some of our scripts started failing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"You can buy plans that range from free to $500 a month."
"There is an annual license required to use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional. There are not any additional costs other than the licensing fees to use it."
"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."
"LoadRunner Professional is an expensive product."
"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."
"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."
"Pricing depends on our choices because it depends on what type of protocol we are getting, what type of licensing we are getting, and what kind of relationships we have with HP and Micro Focus."
"I would rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten."
"It is a high-cost investment, particularly for companies with small budgets or limited testing needs."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
894,738 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
No data available
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Construction Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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...
 

Also Known As

LoadView Stress Testing
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Citrix, Aflac, Xerox, American InterContinental University, UMASS, ITT Technical Institute, Roanoke College
JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Find out what your peers are saying about Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing vs. OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.