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

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs Original Software Qualify comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (2nd), Load Testing Tools (2nd)
Original Software Qualify
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (30th)
 

Mindshare comparison

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) and Original Software Qualify aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is designed for Performance Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 15.3%, up 14.8% compared to last year.
Original Software Qualify, on the other hand, focuses on Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites, holds 1.0% mindshare, up 0.1% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)15.3%
Tricentis NeoLoad12.5%
Apache JMeter9.3%
Other62.9%
Performance Testing Tools
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Original Software Qualify1.0%
Jira11.1%
Microsoft Azure DevOps9.8%
Other78.1%
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

SR
Assistant Director at Synapxe
Has enabled my team to identify bottlenecks effectively and deliver reliable performance analysis across projects
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 heard of any significant issues. I can gather specific improvement suggestions from my architect and provide that information later.
Konstantinos Tasiopoulos - PeerSpot reviewer
Group Integration Tools Manager at TITAN
Flexible, multifunctional, and stable testing software with good technical support
I've been using the latest version of Original Software Qualify AQM. Over 100 users in our company use Original Software Qualify AQM. We only have two people in charge of its deployment and maintenance. This software is extensively used in our company. Personally, I recommend Original Software Qualify AQM to other people looking into implementing it. You can do a lot of things with this software. The support is very good. The communication is very good, and they also listen to problems raised. They add new features and functionalities as a response to past problems or issues. It's a very good tool and I recommend it. We've seen a return on investment from this software. I'm rating Original Software Qualify AQM a nine out of ten, because of several reasons: It's very good software, it's a supportive company, and we have very good results from it. This software also minimizes the effort of UATs, and it also allows us to deploy whatever we want.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The front loader and the reporting features are the most valuable aspects of OpenText LoadRunner Professional."
"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"It covers the most technology, is the most reliable, it gives us the most features."
"In many scenarios, you have to be able to run or put load on your application, and that's what that product does, and it does it pretty well."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is a stable solution; we did not have any issues with the stability or the performance of this solution."
"The load testing, reporting, and scripting features are all valuable features."
"Scripting for web is faster and easier."
"The most valuable features are the ease of using it to create scripts and the broad number of technologies supported, including apps, SAP, and everything on the web."
"Flexible software with multiple functions, e.g. scenario deployment, new entity creation, workflow creation, etc. Technical support for this software is very good."
"You can do a lot of things with this software; the support is very good, the communication is very good, they listen to problems raised, add new features and functionalities as a response to past problems or issues, and we have seen a return on investment from this software."
 

Cons

"In terms of improvement, it lacks mobile testing features present in some competitors, like GitMatters, which I find valuable."
"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."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high-quality technical support, I rate the support a one."
"If the support of the protocols was the same throughout the other protocols and it was there evenly, then I would rate the product higher."
"Scripting should be simpler, it becomes very complex many times."
"The solution is very costly. The cost is very high, especially considering a lot of other resources are available now and they are less expensive. For a small organization, it is very difficult to sustain the costs involved in having the solution or the related fees"
"Network monitoring."
"The debugging capability is difficult to use and should be improved."
"The reporting engine of Original Software Qualify AQM needs to change. It's very difficult to develop complex reports. Its reporting function needs improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"LoadRunner is more expensive than some competing products."
"The licensing is on a yearly basis and is relatively expensive."
"The pricing model and the software licensing model could be better."
"I would still consider LoadRunner as an expensive tool and you get a LoadRunner and the Performance Center."
"I would rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten."
"The licensing of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. If it can be easier and the concurrent run can be included with the current total number of users, it would be helpful."
"LoadRunner Professional's licensing costs are on the higher side, apart from the Community Edition."
"This software is moderately priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,858 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
15%
Construction Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
No data available
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

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 primary use case for Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
I work only with the performance testing tools and not with OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) for mobile and web applications. With performance testing, I am t...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
Qualify
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
CertainTeed, Marston's,  Edrington, Ageas,  iPERS.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: August 2026.
908,858 professionals have used our research since 2012.