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

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise vs ReadyAPI comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 LoadRunner Enterprise
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
83
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (5th)
ReadyAPI
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
8th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
35
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is 6.2%, down from 8.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI is 3.0%, down from 3.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

VictorHorescu - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to test almost every tool in the companies I enter and performs well in a distributed environment
It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems. In real time, when they ask for 5,000 or 10,000 concurrent users, I have to provision a lot of virtual machines to define this load. Then there are situations with certain platforms, especially document management platforms, where the technology is so weird that normal LoadRunner protocols cannot detect it. So, in that case, I have to use that special TruClient protocol. I have to use the TruClient protocol, which actually clicks on the object. Despite the SQL technology, I can still create a script and test for performance. So what I would appreciate a lot is if this protocol would require less resources on a normal virtual machine. I can use fewer concurrent users with TruClient protocols as opposed to almost one hundred with HTTP/HTML. As opposed to many more with HTTP/HTML from, let's say, JMeter. So, optimization at that level for resource consumption by OpenText would be much appreciated.
SandeepSingh9 - PeerSpot reviewer
Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper
One of the features of ReadyAPI that's worth mentioning is that it allows you to parameterize. I'm working with more than two hundred resources, so I don't have to go and make a small change at each point every time. I have the option to just parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere. Another valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it provides a customized environment. In my company, you work in different environments, such as QA, UAT, and LT, so the URLs for every environment are different. In ReadyAPI, you can customize your environment, set it up, then start working on it. Another feature worth mentioning that's offered in ReadyAPI is automating your test value as the tool allows Groovy scripting. In your test case, you can use a Groovy script that says that in a particular test case, you have ten resources, but you just want to exhibit five and that you don't want to exhibit the remaining five. You can write a small Groovy script that lets you execute just five resources out of the ten resources. I also like that ReadyAPI allows you to read the data from CFC and Excel. It also allows you to create or customize your data, but that only works at a certain point because every application has its specific data. ReadyAPI cannot generate every data, but when I'm posting and I want to generate a random name, such as a first name, I can do it in ReadyAPI. The tool also has many different features which I find valuable, including Git integration.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable part of the product is the way you can scale the basic testing easily."
"It's a very powerful tool."
"Support is nice, quick, and responsive."
"Now that LoadRunner integrates with Dynatrace and other monitoring tools, it simplifies the process of integration into a company, taking merely five minutes to set up. This ease of integration allows for quick comparison of monitoring and performance results, a feature I highly appreciate."
"We haven't had an outage since we started using the solution."
"I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself."
"We can book load generators."
"The fact that you can have tens of thousands of virtual users and just expand an army of load generators to hammer on whatever application you're testing."
"The dashboards are very good and consolidate all of the tests that you are performing with the client."
"The most valuable feature is being able to run each version for test suites."
"The most valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it is user-friendly."
"Reporting is more robust than other products because test reports can be exported in multiple ways."
"For anyone who does not have experience with automation, ReadyAPI provides a sense of comfort, especially for testers who find it hard to go directly into coding."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the scripting tools and the connectivity to external data sources, such as Excel and PDF files. There are plenty of useful features that are useful, such as automating flexibility and usability. Overall, the solution is easy to use."
"When you are working in sprints, you need to have continuous feedback. ReadyAPI definitely helps in automating very fast and rapidly. We have less coding, and we can more easily define our assertions. We don't use it for full-blown performance testing, but normally if you are doing your functional testing, it gives you the request and response time. Anybody who is doing functional testing can see what the request and response times are and raise a flag based upon their business affiliates, that is, whether it is meeting their affiliates. You can identify this during functional testing."
"The interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them."
 

Cons

"I believe the data that demonstrates the automated correlations should be corrected."
"On the newer versions, I think the bleeding edge is still being worked on."
"Sometimes, the code is not generated when we record the scripts in the backend."
"I'd rate the scalability a six out of ten. The main reason is that it's a very expensive application. Other companies might not be able to afford it. For example, if we need to test an application with 10,000 concurrent users, the license can cost a lot of money. That's where OpenText tools shoot themselves in the foot compared to other tools. Because of the price, many companies, like one I used to work for, decided not to renew their licenses and switched to open-source testing tools."
"When we have a new application, recording the application is a pretty tough task. We have tried multiple things. We do scripting or try to record with different settings and on different machines. We try to record multiple times, but we do not know why it is recording and why it is not recording. We do the same thing on different machines. It sometimes records, and at other times, it does not. That is one of the major concerns."
"It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems."
"It's not that popular on the cloud."
"Many of my customers have had to switch to different tools due to the cost of LoadRunner, despite its advantages, leading them to alternatives like JMeter and RPT."
"The reporting in ReadyAPI could be better. It can become sloppy, sometimes it works and other times it does not."
"The performance in some cases needs improvement. Sometimes it requires too many resources."
"Many users will consider this solution expensive compared to the layout. It is more expensive than other solutions."
"If ReadyAPI had more integration with all of the big tools on the market then this would be very useful."
"It is challenging doing upgrades and patches because sometimes the environmental variables or suits in the projects get erased."
"The UI is not user-friendly."
"ReadyAPI's customer support isn't that great, particularly their response time."
"Can be improved by including an inherent feature for UI automation."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We got a very good deal. We are happy with that. We have 5,000 licenses."
"The price is really steep. It's an enterprise-level tool."
"I rate the product's pricing a three out of ten."
"It does everything you could hope for in a performance testing solution. It's not cheap."
"The tool is very expensive."
"ROI is 200%."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's price is high."
"The price is a bit too high."
"We have approximately 12 licenses in place. There are other solutions that are more expensive than ReadyAPI that have more features, but if the scope of the project is limited to SOAP and REST service, then this is the best option."
"It costs approximately $200 000 Taiwan Dollars for three years."
"The price of the solution has been fine."
"The pricing is very competitive."
"There are costs in addition to the licensing fee. For example, if you want to add the load testing you would pay more."
"The price was around $6,000 for one license, but I don't remember exactly. It is definitely expensive. Our organization was planning on having multiple licenses for this year."
"For each license, they charge the same amount, which is less than $1,000 for each desktop license."
"The solution is dynamically priced so you only pay for what you use."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
16%
Insurance Company
8%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
Now that LoadRunner integrates with Dynatrace and other monitoring tools, it simplifies the process of integration into a company, taking merely five minutes to set up. This ease of integration a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
In 2019, I was dealing with the costs of LoadRunner. While I don't remember the exact figures, JMeter being free and RPT being cheaper makes them attractive. The high cost of LoadRunner, in contras...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
While I don't see any issues with LoadRunner's functionality, the cost of the tool is a major factor. Many of my customers have had to switch to different tools due to the cost of LoadRunner, despi...
What do you like most about ReadyAPI?
The performance testing capabilities are very good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ReadyAPI?
The pricing of ReadyAPI is reasonable, considering its functionality compared to other tools in the market. However, I recommend open-source solutions for small-scale industries due to lower costs.
What needs improvement with ReadyAPI?
Based on my experience, ReadyAPI could improve by simplifying the process of scripting. The automation features require extensive Groovy scripting, which is cumbersome compared to JMeter's regular ...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, Micro Focus Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
Ready API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
Healthcare Data Solutions (HDS)
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise vs. ReadyAPI and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.