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

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs StresStimulus 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
StresStimulus
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
9th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
3
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 StresStimulus is 1.9%, up from 1.7% 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%
StresStimulus1.9%
Other82.8%
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.
reviewer1924179 - PeerSpot reviewer
Customer Service Agent at Capita
Reliable with excellent support but needs better source control integration and versioning
Source control integration and versioning could be better. Currently, StresStimulus does not natively support any form of change control management. Result analysis (snap-out tabs for side-by-side comparisons) need improvement. Multiple sets of analysis results can be opened in the user interface at the same time, and comparison reports can be generated to compare some aspects of pairs of test runs. However, the interface that displays the multiple sets of results only allows a single result set to be viewed at any one time & uses tabs to switch between the individual result sets. It would be useful to have the ability to view multiple tabs at once, either side by side in the interface or by snapping tabs out of the interface into their own windows to be viewed together with others. Graphing (collect PerfMon data as part of the tests and then have the ability to create different graphs with that data after the test completes to help with analysis) could be better. Graphs and their contents have to be defined before tests are run. Often, as a result of running tests and viewing the results collected, it is necessary to have graphs showing/comparing different metrics collections than those specified before the run. Other tools collect metrics that are not tied to pre-defined graphs & allow the metrics to be used to construct graphs as required by subsequent analysis & investigation. Nested tests/test case groups/test solution files (ability to build a hierarchy of test cases/test case groups/solution files) are required. Within a StresStimulus, tests are organized in just two levels, test cases, and test case groups. As is possible with other tools, it would be helpful to have a hierarchy with multiple levels of nested test cases/test case groups (or even the solution config files themselves). It would make it easier to manage multiple sets, combinations of tests, load profiles & test mixes if a high-level solution file (or test case group) could run a collection of lower-level ones, which in turn end up executing multiple different base-level test case groups and individual test cases.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The stability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is very high. It is the leading tool for stability."
"I'm really happy with what they’re giving me for what I do, but because I don't do performance monitoring or performance testing using LoadRunner, I'm not completely aware of everything else, but for what I do it's a great tool for me."
"There are various languages that they allow those programs to be written in, whether you want to use Java or something else."
"Its variety of testing tools for different applications is of great benefit, as well as its integration capabilities with other testing and monitoring solutions."
"LoadRunner is a very sophisticated tool, and I can use many languages. For example, I can use Java. I can use C++. I can test the Internet of Things, FTP, mail, and Active Directory. It is very useful."
"The solution is quite stable."
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"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."
"Compared to other tools, there is not a whole lot to Stress Stimulus UI. This makes it easy to use, be it while scripting, executing, or having to train someone new to the team."
"Designed to be a modern testing tool, StresStimulus made it easy for us to upgrade from an older deprecated testing tool and adapt to Agile DevOps testing principles by shifting left with performance testing."
"Technical support is great."
 

Cons

"I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"The flexibility could be improved. For example, there are some use cases where I prefer to use NeoLoad rather than LoadRunner because of the flexibility that it provides."
"We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly."
"I would rate the technical support a one out of five. The technical support is very bad."
"We still have some issues with integration with things like SiteScope which, obviously, being another HPE product should be very straightforward, but there are always issues around that."
"The initial start-up of Micro Focus LoadRunner could be improved. When we add 20 or 30 scripts, the refresh is completed one by one. I would like to be able to select all the script at one time, so it can be completed in a single click, reducing the time required."
"The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user."
"StresStimulus has a dedicated blog where users of the tool can log new feature requests or enhancements to existing features."
"Analyzing results from test runs is proving to be challenging."
"We run tests on SQL statements and stored procedures directly, even before integrating with UI. I wish there were a way to connect to my application DB and run SQL queries using a JDBC connection."
"Result analysis (snap-out tabs for side-by-side comparisons) need improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This is not a cheap product."
"I would still consider LoadRunner as an expensive tool and you get a LoadRunner and the Performance Center."
"LoadRunner Professional is an expensive product."
"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."
"LoadRunner is more expensive than some competing products."
"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."
"It is reasonable. We pay the cost, but we have everything. We have a big set of licenses for SAP and other applications. We have all kinds of licenses."
Information not available
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%
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
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs. StresStimulus and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.