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

OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) vs Telerik Test Studio 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 Core Performance E...
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
6th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (5th)
Telerik Test Studio
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
14th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (24th), Regression Testing Tools (11th), Test Automation Tools (24th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) is 9.2%, up from 8.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 2.1%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud)9.2%
Telerik Test Studio2.1%
Other88.7%
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Jyoti Ranjan Behera - PeerSpot reviewer
Performance Test Analyst at Sensata Technologies
User-friendly features facilitate monitoring while support could be more responsive
I am satisfied with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud as a product, but the ticket resolution time is concerning. The technical personnel are not able to fix issues quickly, which becomes problematic during critical situations. Compared to previous support, I notice that while experts previously resolved issues immediately, current experts take more time to resolve issues, which is the main challenge we are facing. They are now lacking regional support, which takes more time than it used to. My suggestions for improvements to OpenText LoadRunner Cloud would be to have specific experts available who can resolve issues more quickly, as delays can impact project timelines significantly.
Raghvendra Jyothi - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager Project Management at Capgemini
Very good performance and load testing capabilities
There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The usability and ability to integrate with other solutions is quite good. When I use it in on Azure, then Red Hat is the most likely solution I use. When I use AWS, then I tend to use Lambda functions. In either case, it works well and you can use it either way."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"Both the professional and cloud versions of Micro Focus LoadRunner use the same scripting or programming to execute performance modeling operations. This feature allows users to use various programming languages such as Java, C, or C++, which can run within either of the two environments. This flexibility in the programming language is a strong point of the software."
"The TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud can scale in a cloud-based environment to support up to ten thousand concurrent users without capacity loss, which is not possible with on-premise solutions on personal machines."
"It's a fast product, so you don't have much trouble in terms of maintenance overhead. You don't want to just look into configuring load generators, look for upgrades, and end up having that take up a lot of your time. With this solution, you just log in and you start using it. This means that there is a huge benefit in terms of the overhead of maintaining the infrastructure and the maintenance effort."
"The fact that the solution supports multiple protocols such as open source, VuGen, TruWeb, TruClient, and SAP is very important because these protocols help us to concentrate on what is really needed to produce performance tests. If something is not supported, you have to use other tools or find other ways of assimilating loads."
"The record and playback feature is the most valuable feature. It's all driven by the script, so it's a script-based tool where the background tracing starts. Java's background process does a lot of tracing. The process starts in the background. It sees what peaks of volumes that the process can handle. It's easy to use because it's script based, record, and playback. I"
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
 

Cons

"The product price could be more affordable."
"The product must provide agents to monitor servers."
"It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need."
"One area for improvement in LoadRunner Cloud, especially for agile models, is its limited support for functional testing alongside its robust non-functional testing capabilities."
"We did have some challenges with the initial implementation."
"The analysis feature in OpenText LoadRunner Cloud requires improvement. In-depth analysis tools found in the standalone LoadRunner analysis, such as graph merging and setting granularity, would be beneficial."
"There are three modules in the system that are different products packaged into one, and they can sometimes be difficult to figure out, so they should be better integrated with each other."
"In terms of new features, they can natively integrate with Chaos engineering tools such as Chaos Monkey and AWS FIS. With LoadRunner, we can generate load, and if Chaos tools are also supported natively, it will help to get everything together."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is dependent on what you're referring to. If you're talking about the cloud, it's likely competitive. However, if you're talking about the on-premise version, professional or enterprise licenses are required. Prices are on the high side. They are not cheap."
"It is neither costly nor cheap. It is not too high and not too low. I know the price of other tools, and LoadRunner Cloud's price is in the medium range."
"We make use of virtual user hours. We buy time in the LoadRunner Cloud. It costs around $80,000."
"It's a very expensive solution"
"The pricing for OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is average."
"It is expensive compared to other tools."
"LoadRunner always had expensive pricing. At my company, we used to evaluate LoadRunner, but we stuck with Silk Performer because its pricing was always better in the past. I do feel that I got a fair deal this time. Our value-added reseller and our sales guy worked hard to give us a fair deal. I feel that we got a fair deal. We did not go for the pay-as-you-go deal. I did an upfront package. I prefer that. I want to know what my costs are."
"The solution is expensive."
"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
884,797 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Performing Arts
5%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
University
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise30
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Do you recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
I absolutely recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud. In fact, I consider it to be one of the best performance testing tools. I like it because it provides many benefits. Some of the ones I find to...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
As for the pricing of OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud), I find it quite expensive compared to other products in the market.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
Regarding improvements in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud), the initial configuration where we have to set up orchestration is something that could be improved. If they make...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud, StormRunner Load, LoadRunner Cloud, and Micro Focus StormRunner Load
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Alfa Bank, N Brown Group, University of Copenhagen, McGraw-Hill, Cognizant
Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) vs. Telerik Test Studio and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,797 professionals have used our research since 2012.