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

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs RadView WebLOAD comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 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

OpenText Enterprise Perform...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
5th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
86
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
RadView WebLOAD
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
12th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
15th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is 7.1%, up from 5.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RadView WebLOAD is 3.5%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise)7.1%
RadView WebLOAD3.5%
Other89.4%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

VK
A VP at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Performance testing has supported web app peak analysis but needs better setup and smarter scripting
Regarding points for improvement for OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise), I see that features are not being fully developed yet. If OpenText could think about bringing AI features into the tool, it could save maximum time in scripting or make scripting effortless, particularly in correlation, which is where the complexity involved in script development exists. If any AI features could replace or eliminate more manual work on the correlation part, that is where we could see a game-changing improvement for the tool. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) can be positioned very well in the market. However, I see that the basic correlations are only being handled by the autocorrelation engine in the LoadRunner tool, and I would expect a few improvements to handle even complex correlation problems so that the tool can be appropriately positioned compared to their peers.
it_user1265766 - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Team Lead at Medtronic, Inc.
IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process but the reporting is complicated
You pay for the number of users that you're going to be utilizing. In order to scale up, you would have to pay for additional users, but for our use case, we're able to scale fairly easily. We have a license for 500, but we're using half of that for our initial workflow. For maintenance, as far as I'm aware, there's only one person really working on the maintenance of it and we only really have one user consistently using the software. He's a QA person. We don't have any plans to increase our usage. Even though we've had it for a while, we have a major push to start utilizing it more. I imagine we'll probably be using it and utilizing it across our QA team in the next year. We're in the process of determining whether we're going to keep it or not due to the fact that it is so expensive. That's why I've been researching alternatives for the RadView.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"With LoadRunner, 80% of the cases will be supported."
"The user interface is fine."
"The solution offers helpful guidelines and has good documentation."
"Overall, I am satisfied with this product."
"It helps us to be confident and to be aware of where issues are before we release a product to a wider audience."
"The product is good, and the concept is good as well."
"​Probably its prime advantage, it provides a centralized location for testing."
"The most valuable part of the product is the way you can scale the basic testing easily."
"The ability to conceptualize the experience for users is great, the price as the bang for your buck is good, the user interface is quite user friendly, and the graphics make it easy to follow and are easy to identify."
"The tool itself is very viable for us."
"The solution is simple and useful."
"Technical support has been excellent, responsive, and helpful in trying to work through issues and questions."
"They are the best of all of the vendors I deal with, hands down."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting; it is interesting, intuitive, and we can do some parameterization."
"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"Customer service is excellent; they're very responsive and willing to work extra hours, and in the first couple of hours that we were up and running, they taught us how to implement it and to figure out and negotiate AWS."
 

Cons

"New features have been added in latest version and need to be improved with the DevOps integration."
"The product's scalability must be improved."
"Communication between load testing hosts and components is very complex and sometimes fragile, making manual intervention still too often necessary should an anomaly occur during testing."
"I think some enhanced support, be it online or documentation, would be appreciated."
"I think better or more integration with some of the monitoring tools that we're considering."
"Regarding OpenText technical support, I find it very pathetic."
"The reporting has room for improvement."
"We'd like the product to include protocol identifiers whenever a tester wants to test a new application."
"When it finds a problem with response times, it doesn't specify exactly where the problem actually is."
"We did have an issue with some of the script working incorrectly in our higher environments."
"There is no analytical dashboard."
"It would be great, in addition to the load tool, it would be nice, if Radview offered a JavaScript based functional test tool as well."
"They can improve in the reporting - the ability to generate custom reports."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
"I would like to be able to edit a scenario instead of re-recording a scenario."
"The reporting side of things is really complicated. It's difficult to get out exactly what you're looking for, there are almost too many options."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We are content with the pricing and find it to be reasonable in terms of value for money."
"The price is a bit too high."
"It is a bit expensive, especially for smaller organizations, but over-all it can save you money."
"This solution can be expensive."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's price is high."
"It is a bit expensive when compared with other tools."
"We got an 80 percent discount for the product. It was cost-effective, but licenses tend to get expensive."
"The price is okay. You're able to buy it, as opposed to paying for a full year."
"We purchased a license for two years."
"It costs $8,600 yearly and we have the Cloud, which is an additional $800. Our perpetual license is $800 and then the Cloud functionality with our 500 users is the $8,600."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
10%
Healthcare Company
9%
Performing Arts
13%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Construction Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise75
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Large Enterprise10
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
When discussing price, OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is very expensive, which I would represent by a rating of ten. The product carries maximum expense points.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
Regarding points for improvement for OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise), I see that features are not being fully developed yet. If OpenText could think about bringi...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
My use case for OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is related to enterprise twenty six, which we are going to upgrade now. We focus on web applications.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
GoDaddy, Praxair, DeVry University and the College Board.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. RadView WebLOAD and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.