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

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs Tricentis Flood 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 Load Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (4th)
Tricentis Flood
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
15th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is 11.7%, down from 12.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Flood is 2.5%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)11.7%
Tricentis Flood2.5%
Other85.8%
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.
Test Process Consultant - PeerSpot reviewer
SME (Subject Matter Expert) at Maersk
Need improvements ,but has cloud and on-premises options
The solution is not in an optimal state. During POC, we analyzed tool is kept on upgrading. The patch deployment is happening in parallel, things that are working today are not working tomorrow. We eventually sorted it out with help of CSM. We integrated this tool with other software such as Azure client, but many times without a valid or visible reason, the connectivity was breaking. Improvement suggestions- The dashboard creation for the reporting needs to be easier. Currently, the solution does not support multiple script executions and we would like to see support for this.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is a good and stable tool."
"Because we're a telecommunications company with millions of subscribers, we run very high volume tests for 24-48 hours, LoadRunner has been very, very stable during these tests and has gotten us results."
"It is quite a good tool, it supports a medical protocol which we tried to explore in other products but none of them had, and overall it is pretty simple and easy to use."
"I am impressed with the tool's correlation function."
"Scripting for web is faster and easier."
"LoadRunner gives us real data regarding our performance testing."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to create performance test cases quickly and then execute them, and it provides a lot of powerful features to do that very efficiently and effectively."
"It is very costly, but LoadRunner works perfectly."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises; that is a very good part of the solution."
"You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"Their technical support is awesome."
"Their technical support is awesome."
 

Cons

"There should be more integration with more open-source platforms."
"The price of this solution should be cheaper."
"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."
"The extended features are available but the high pricing is an issue."
"Complexity. LoadRunner is not simple to learn by installing it and "doing it"."
"Instead of having too many graphs and tabs, use the analysis section to get a more simplified defect analysis."
"The solution lacks some form of integration."
"Improvement wise, the pipeline should be enabled. It should be embedded as part of the tool itself rather than going with third-party tools. Monitoring should be more effective as well."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
"The solution is not in an optimal state."
"We used an implementation strategy to deploy the solution, not because of the tools, but mainly because of the scripting part of the tool."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
"The solution lacks a little bit in the reporting features."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing model, especially when involving partners, could use some improvement."
"The licensing is on a yearly basis and is relatively expensive."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low and ten is a high price, I rate the solution a five."
"The pricing model and the software licensing model could be better."
"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."
"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."
"The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user."
"This is not a cheap product."
"The only positive point is it came free with my test automation tool."
"This solution is in the average price range compared to other testing tools."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
885,667 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
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Construction Company
14%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise66
No data available
 

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...
Do you recommend Tricentis Flood?
Tricentis Flood is the kind of versatile load and performance testing solution that my organization and I cannot help but recommend. It is recognized by companies across a wide variety of fields as...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
Flood IO
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Nike, heroku, Soulcycle, NEC, boston.com, Typeform, Xero, Telus
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs. Tricentis Flood and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,667 professionals have used our research since 2012.