Top 10 OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Alternatives

Name: OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise)
Brand: OpenText
Rating: 4.2 (85 reviews)

Vendor: OpenText

4.2 out of 5

85 reviews
90% willing to recommend

Leave a review

Top OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, and BlazeMeter. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) surpasses its competitors by offering robust scalability, seamless cloud integration, and comprehensive real-time analytics, enabling businesses to efficiently manage performance testing and optimize application delivery across complex environments.

OpenText Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with OpenText, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.

Get the alternatives report

Apache JMeter

3.9 out of 5

Apache JMeter

3.9 out of 5

LoadRunner Enterprise targets large enterprises with its extensive protocol support and integration capabilities. In comparison, JMeter appeals to budget-conscious organizations with its open-source model. LoadRunner integrates well with enterprise tools, while JMeter offers simplicity and flexibility for smaller projects.

Download Apache JMeter vs. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Report

Pricing

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) requires an upfront setup cost, whereas Apache JMeter offers a more cost-effective setup, highlighting a significant pricing difference between the two solutions for initial deployment.

View comparison

Pricing

Tricentis NeoLoad

4.1 out of 5

Tricentis NeoLoad

4.1 out of 5

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise excels in test scheduling and extensive protocol support, ideal for detailed insights and robust capabilities. In comparison, Tricentis NeoLoad offers a user-friendly environment and codeless scripting, appealing to those prioritizing ease of use and cost-effective licensing.

Download OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. Tricentis NeoLoad Report

Pricing

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) has a higher setup cost compared to Tricentis NeoLoad, highlighting a significant difference in initial investment.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) has a higher setup cost compared to Tricentis NeoLoad, highlighting a significant difference in initial investment.

BlazeMeter

4.1 out of 5

BlazeMeter

4.1 out of 5

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise excels in centralized testing with extensive protocol support, while BlazeMeter focuses on cloud-based ease of use. In comparison, OpenText offers detailed analysis capabilities, whereas BlazeMeter provides flexible pricing and seamless integration with open-source tools.

Download BlazeMeter vs. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Report

Pricing

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) incurs higher setup costs compared to BlazeMeter, which offers a more budget-friendly initial setup. BlazeMeter appeals to cost-conscious users, while LoadRunner Enterprise suits those prioritizing comprehensive feature...

View comparison

Pricing

Perfecto

4.2 out of 5

Perfecto

4.2 out of 5

LoadRunner Enterprise offers comprehensive features with strong reporting and test scheduling, making it suitable for complex projects. In comparison, Perfecto's cloud-based infrastructure efficiently automates testing across diverse devices, providing competitive cross-platform capabilities beneficial for dispersed teams.

Download OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. Perfecto Report

Pricing

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) has a higher initial setup cost, while Perfecto offers a more budget-friendly setup.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) has a higher initial setup cost, while Perfecto offers a more budget-friendly setup.

ReadyAPI

3.9 out of 5

ReadyAPI

3.9 out of 5

LoadRunner Enterprise provides robust distributed testing, ideal for large-scale performance needs. In comparison, ReadyAPI offers agile API testing with seamless integration. Tech buyers choose LoadRunner for comprehensive performance features, while ReadyAPI attracts those needing versatile, cost-effective API solutions.

Download OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. ReadyAPI Report

Pricing

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) has a high initial setup cost, while ReadyAPI offers a more affordable setup option.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) has a high initial setup cost, while ReadyAPI offers a more affordable setup option.

Oracle Application Testing Suite

3.9 out of 5

Oracle Application Testing Suite

3.9 out of 5

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering offers comprehensive testing with robust integration and detailed scenarios suited for complex environments. In comparison, Oracle Application Testing Suite appeals with cost-effective simplicity, streamlined for Oracle systems but with limitations outside. Buyers may choose each based on complexity needs and budget constraints.

Download OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite Report

Pricing

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise offers a straightforward setup process, while Oracle Application Testing Suite involves higher initial costs and complexity. OpenText’s efficiency stands out compared to Oracle’s more intricate setup.

View comparison

Pricing

Appvance AIQ Platform

4.0 out of 5

Appvance AIQ Platform

4.0 out of 5

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise attracts tech buyers with extensive protocol support and integration capabilities. In comparison, Appvance AIQ Platform appeals with its AI-driven testing and automation. OpenText offers established, comprehensive support; Appvance provides efficient deployment tailored to innovative, fast-paced environments.

Pricing

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) involves a significant upfront setup cost, while Appvance AIQ Platform offers a more cost-effective setup.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) involves a significant upfront setup cost, while Appvance AIQ Platform offers a more cost-effective setup.

k6 Open Source

3.8 out of 5

k6 Open Source

3.8 out of 5

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering offers extensive protocol support and real-time analytics. In comparison, k6 Open Source provides simplicity with script-based testing and easy CI/CD integration. LoadRunner Enterprise suits large organizations, while k6 is ideal for agile, cost-conscious teams.

Download OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. k6 Open Source Report

Pricing

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering has a significant setup cost, contrasting with k6 Open Source which offers a no-cost setup, highlighting the affordability of k6 compared to the comprehensive commercial structure of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise.

View comparison

Pricing

IBM Rational Test Workbench

3.8 out of 5

IBM Rational Test Workbench

3.8 out of 5

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering offers affordability and scalability, appealing to budget-conscious enterprises. In comparison, IBM Rational Test Workbench attracts those seeking extensive automation and integration capabilities. Both solutions offer different deployment options catering to varying organizational needs and preferences.

Download IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Report

Pricing

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) involves significant initial setup cost, whereas IBM Rational Test Workbench requires a lesser financial commitment at the start.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) involves significant initial setup cost, whereas IBM Rational Test Workbench requires a lesser financial commitment at the start.

IBM Engineering Test Management

3.8 out of 5

IBM Engineering Test Management

3.8 out of 5

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise attracts tech buyers with its robust performance features and extensive protocol support. In comparison, IBM Engineering Test Management appeals to those valuing collaboration and integration in IBM-centric environments, offering strong traceability and seamless workflows within its software suite.

Download IBM Engineering Test Management vs. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Report

Pricing

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) has a higher setup cost, while IBM Engineering Test Management offers a more budget-friendly initial investment.

View comparison

Pricing

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) has a higher setup cost, while IBM Engineering Test Management offers a more budget-friendly initial investment.

Show 9 more products

Related categories

Performance Testing Tools

Load Testing Tools

API Testing Tools