Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cavisson NetStorm vs OpenText LoadRunner Professional comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 6, 2025

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

Cavisson NetStorm
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
18th
Average Rating
9.4
Reviews Sentiment
8.3
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText LoadRunner Profess...
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
80
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Cavisson NetStorm is 0.5%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is 12.0%, down from 14.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1329360 - PeerSpot reviewer
Has monitoring capabilities integrated into it to see the performance of components while the test is in the running phase
NetStorm can generate high load with a single machine. Its Runlogic feature is very useful to send load to cover each and every flow of the application. NetStorm gives the feasibility of generating load with multiple load arrival models helping components to be tested based on its usage. NetStorm has monitoring capabilities integrated into it to see the performance of components while the test is in the running phase. One more great functionality is the ability to control the load runtime by increasing or decreasing the virtual users or pausing the users to keep on repeating the transactions without exiting.
HelenSague - PeerSpot reviewer
A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications
I do not have any big challenges with LoadRunner. I only have some issues with load generators. It is a very common issue, and I hope it will be resolved in the latest release. For example, when we start to run our tests, users get the message that the load generator exceeded 80% of the CPU utilization. Even when the number of users is less, we get these messages. I am trying to resolve it, but it is not going. It is annoying. It is not a failure, but I hope that it will be resolved. 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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"NetStorm can generate high load with a single machine. Its Runlogic feature is very useful to send load to cover each and every flow of the application. NetStorm gives the feasibility of generating load with multiple load arrival models helping components to be tested based on its usage."
"Designs dynamic scripts and scenarios, as per our requirements, which is one the most important feature available in NetStorm. It helps us to do performance testing of our application in a periodic way."
"This tool helps to focus on real-time transactions that occur at a very high rate."
"I appreciate its ability to handle various internal calls and its user-friendly interface."
"My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"I like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good."
"I am impressed with the tool's correlation function."
"The ability to do multithreading. That's available in any performance testing tool, but the number of protocols that this particular tool supports has been very good."
 

Cons

"The user interface had to be improved for the product. Its user interface should be made simple and easy to customize as per user needs."
"In the next release, we are looking for a JS instrumentation feature that would be helpful in identifying client-side issues at an early stage, or during testing."
"Need to add or support some more APIs in the Script Manager window."
"I would like the solution to include monitoring capacity."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"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"
"There's a reporting part of the cloud that could be improved a little bit."
"The solution must be more user-friendly."
"In terms of improvement, it lacks mobile testing features present in some competitors, like GitMatters, which I find valuable."
"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."
"The monitoring technology in LoadRunner could be improved. It depends on another tool called SiteScope, but they only took a part of the features of SiteScope. They need to improve on that."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"NetStorm is priced well when compared to many well-known tools."
"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."
"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."
"The cost depends greatly on the needs of the testing engagement."
"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 price is a bit on the high side, but it is still affordable."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low and ten is a high price, I rate the solution a five."
"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."
"The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
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
23%
Retailer
21%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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?
Technical support needs to be faster, and the pricing should be more competitive. The virtual table server feature should be reintroduced. Some AI capabilities should be added. There should be an '...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Oracle, Macy's, Redbox, art.com, Pronto Networks, A10 Networks, Renesas, San Jose Medical Group
JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Find out what your peers are saying about Cavisson NetStorm vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.