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

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs RadView WebLOAD 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

OpenText Professional Perfo...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
RadView WebLOAD
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
12th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
14th
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 August 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is 15.3%, up from 14.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RadView WebLOAD is 3.4%, up from 1.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)15.3%
RadView WebLOAD3.4%
Other81.3%
Performance Testing Tools
 

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.
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

"It is very costly, but LoadRunner works perfectly."
"Customer support is available online and it's good enough for solving the general problems that pop up."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"Available protocols."
"This is a stable product - I've dealt with it over the past 15 years and it's stable."
"I have used several tools, but Micro Focus is the best, and we can get things done in a very short period of time."
"Paramterization and correlation are important features."
"The front loader and the reporting features are the most valuable aspects of OpenText LoadRunner Professional."
"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"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."
"Technical support has been excellent, responsive, and helpful in trying to work through issues and questions."
"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."
"The solution is simple and useful."
"The analytics pack is probably one of the most powerful tools that I've seen."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting; it is interesting, intuitive, and we can do some parameterization."
 

Cons

"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"Remote Load Generators has issues in identifying objects on dynamic web pages"
"I think it needs to have better reporting."
"There is room for improvement of the pilot processing, the dump analysis, and forwarding results based on the dump analysis. We have a generator, root controller, different agents, and an analyzer, so all of these are very important when it comes to LoadRunner."
"Some form of automation is needed in this product, whether it's integration with CI/CD or providing the facility to import JSON files, so that we can automatically create the scripts."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high-quality technical support, I rate the support a one."
"I would rate the technical support a one out of five. The technical support is very bad."
"Technical support needs to be faster, and the pricing should be more competitive."
"We did have an issue with some of the script working incorrectly in our higher environments."
"I would like to be able to edit a scenario instead of re-recording a scenario."
"When it finds a problem with response times, it doesn't specify exactly where the problem actually is."
"We have had a lot of trouble with this solution, and it is actually adapted to our application."
"Well there’s one issue when I have five or six scripts-- you have to set up different percentages and the number of connections and users, no matter how I tweak it seems that when I have one of the load scripts in the mix set, a percentage of less than 8-10%, there’s a probability that it won’t run at all."
"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."
"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

"The licensing is on a yearly basis and is relatively expensive."
"The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user."
"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."
"The licensing model is complex. You have to pick up the protocol and the number of concurrent users, and then select the level of concurrent users. For example, there would be one price for 100 to 500 users and another for 500 to 2000 users. If you choose two protocols, then you will have to pay twice the amount depending on the number of concurrent users."
"I don't know the licensing cost, but I think that you would get a discount for normal usage. I think there are different yearly options for different types of usage. It is not only how many users, but also whether it is shareable or not and other criteria involved in each feature. There are additional fees for the users and hardware linked to the processing."
"It is a high-cost investment, particularly for companies with small budgets or limited testing needs."
"I would rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten."
"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."
"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."
"We purchased a license for two years."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 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%
Performing Arts
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Construction Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise67
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Large Enterprise10
 

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
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
GoDaddy, Praxair, DeVry University and the College Board.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs. RadView WebLOAD and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.