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

OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs RadView WebLOAD comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText LoadRunner Profess...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
80
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
RadView WebLOAD
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
10th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
8.2
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is 12.3%, down from 15.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RadView WebLOAD is 1.4%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Vadim Urintsov - PeerSpot reviewer
An excellent solution for graph testing on programming software
Our primary use case for the solution is for graph testing on programming software The information provided via the solution and the dashboard is valuable. Additionally, it's interesting as you can view inside information integrated and see the WebLOAD with APM. There is no analytical dashboard…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"It uses high-level languages like Java, CVC, and CCL."
"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 think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"The solution is quite stable."
"It has good protocol coverage."
"Very useful for finding out how the system responds to load, stress, and normal situations, as well as benchmarking with other industry competitors. It also improved our response time, memory delegation, and CPU delegation. In addition, we used LoadRunner to optimize our database and website."
"The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"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."
 

Cons

"I also use the TrueClient feature for browser-based testing. I found the TrueClient feature to be a bit difficult to use and not very user-friendly for automating scripts."
"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."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
"We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market."
"I would like the solution to include monitoring capacity."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"I recently just got to see LoadRunner Developer, but it is still not fully developed to use."
"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 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."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
"There is no analytical dashboard."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"For licensing, we pay a lot for it. But the incentive is the support we get with it, that we pay once, and we are set."
"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."
"There is an annual license required to use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional. There are not any additional costs other than the licensing fees to use it."
"It is a high-cost investment, particularly for companies with small budgets or limited testing needs."
"The pricing model and the software licensing model could be better."
"There is a licensing cost that is expensive."
"It costs $8,600 yearly and we have the Cloud, which is an additional $800. Our perpetual license is $800 and then the Cloud functionality with our 500 users is the $8,600."
"We purchased a license for two years."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 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
18%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
22%
Healthcare Company
15%
Government
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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?
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 '...
What needs improvement with RadView WebLOAD?
There is no analytical dashboard and it should be included in the next release.
What is your primary use case for RadView WebLOAD?
Our primary use case for the solution is for graph testing on programming software.
 

Also Known As

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

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
GoDaddy, Praxair, DeVry University and the College Board.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs. RadView WebLOAD and other solutions. Updated: November 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.