We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional and RadView WebLOAD based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Paramterization and correlation are important features."
"Scaling is definitely one of the best features of this solution. There are no issues scaling to 10,000 or 20,000 concurrent users."
"The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs."
"A very comprehensive tool that is good for performance testing."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation."
"The most important feature for us is that it supports a lot of protocols because we support all of them, including HTTP, FTP, mainframe, and others."
"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting."
"The solution is simple and useful."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high-quality technical support, I rate the support a one."
"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."
"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"
"The technical support of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. I had an issue with the licensing and their response time is slow. They can improve on this in the future."
"I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator."
"The tool needs to work on capture script feature."
"I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients."
"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."
"There is no analytical dashboard."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews while RadView WebLOAD is ranked 11th in Performance Testing Tools with 9 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while RadView WebLOAD is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RadView WebLOAD writes "IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process but the reporting is complicated". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and SmartBear LoadNinja, whereas RadView WebLOAD is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, Apache JMeter, BlazeMeter and k6 Open Source. See our OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs. RadView WebLOAD report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.