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

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs ReadyAPI Performance 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 Professional Perfo...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
4th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ReadyAPI Performance
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
10th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is 11.2%, down from 11.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI Performance is 2.8%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)11.2%
ReadyAPI Performance2.8%
Other86.0%
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Mahendra Andhale - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Manager at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Open-source and flexible but needs client-side scripting
It's an open-source tool and supports a lot of plugins and custom code, which allows integration with other tools like Azure and AWS. Also, the APIs tested with SoapUI can be directly used, avoiding the need to create collections like in Postman. The client-side scripting, if incorporated, would provide a complete solution for performance tests. It can handle user distribution and transaction throughput distribution effectively.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Scaling is definitely one of the best features of this solution. There are no issues scaling to 10,000 or 20,000 concurrent users."
"Its variety of testing tools for different applications is of great benefit, as well as its integration capabilities with other testing and monitoring solutions."
"It uses high-level languages like Java, CVC, and CCL."
"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."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"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."
"I like LoadRunner's ability to use multiple protocols. That's one of the greatest features along with the ability to test service calls between the app and server."
"One of the most valuable features of LoadRunner Professional is the wide range of protocols it supports, especially the web user v user types."
"It stores good reports, as in, improved reports if compared with the SoapUI. It also has in-built security. You just need to switch and check the security testing. My team has never used it, but I know ReadyAPI provides those facilities as well."
"It's an open-source tool and supports a lot of plugins and custom code, which allows integration with other tools like Azure and AWS."
"It's like a centralized interface that allows us to increase the quality of our APIs."
"ReadyAPI automation can help us validate the functionality of most web services, allowing us to find out the exact number of defects before deployment to the user interface."
"We can scale."
"We find the product to be scalable."
"he initial deployment process is easy."
"The performance and reporting of this solution have been its most valuable features."
 

Cons

"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"There's a reporting part of the cloud that could be improved a little bit."
"I also use the TrueClient feature for browser-based testing. I found the TrueClient feature to be a bit difficult to use and not very user-friendly for automating scripts."
"Micro Focus has two separate products for web and mobile applications, which means you have to invest in both."
"I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients."
"We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market."
"The debugging capability should be improved."
"You should be able to use LoadRunner as a single platform. You should be able to have browser based access. You should be able to run enterprise tests."
"The solution’s interface could be improved."
"I want the solution to be able to monitor Apache Kafka activity as well."
"The client-side scripting mostly isn't needed for performance testing, however, if implemented, it would enhance the tool."
"This solution could be improved by offering artificial AI testing in addition to API testing. For example, we would like to have machine learning testing because when test applications, manual work could be completed automatically using this functionality."
"We need some time to understand and configure the solution."
"It is very slow sometimes."
"I'd not sure if they have the same level of documentation for performance and security testing."
"This is an area for improvement with the tool. We unnecessarily use JMeter for some website testing, which we would like to avoid by introducing this tool for API and load testing because it provides load testing features."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low and ten is a high price, I rate the solution a five."
"LoadRunner Professional's licensing costs are on the higher side, apart from the Community Edition."
"The solution's pricing is 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."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of users."
"There is a licensing cost that is expensive."
"The licensing is on a yearly basis and is relatively expensive."
"This solution operates on a licence basis and the usage and cost varies according to the use case. It is more expensive if you include access to the learning center. On average it costs approximately 800 Euros."
"ReadyAPI Performance’s pricing is reasonable."
"We find the cost to be affordable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,707 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
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Retailer
11%
Media Company
11%
Performing Arts
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise66
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise5
 

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 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 experience regarding pricing and costs for ReadyAPI Performance?
Load UI is mostly free, and the pricing for the pro version is very affordable compared to other tools like LoadRunner.
What needs improvement with ReadyAPI Performance?
The client-side scripting mostly isn't needed for performance testing, however, if implemented, it would enhance the tool.
What is your primary use case for ReadyAPI Performance?
The primary use case is to conduct server-side performance tests, scalability tests, and endurance tests using SoapUI and Load UI.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
LoadUI NG Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Mercedes-Benz, Adobe, Hilton Hotels, The Home Depot
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs. ReadyAPI Performance and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.