No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs Selenium HQ 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:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.8
LoadRunner Professional offers strong ROI with reduced downtime, improved performance, and cost savings, justifying its initial investment.
Sentiment score
6.6
Selenium HQ reduces testing time, increases ROI, and offers cost-efficient automation, despite needing skilled users for optimal performance.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.0
OpenText LoadRunner Professional support varies, with mixed feedback on responsiveness; community forums are often used for assistance.
Sentiment score
6.0
Selenium HQ's open-source model means no official support, but extensive community resources offer effective help for troubleshooting.
If I need to rate support from one to ten, I would say it is a nine.
Assistant Consultant at Tata Consultancy
The technical support is really excellent.
Assistant Director at Synapxe
The marketplace community and forums are what we browse and look after, and we have found solutions whenever we tried to find anything.
DevOps Lead at Illumifin India LLP
I have not had the need to escalate questions to Selenium HQ tech support recently, as open community support is widely available and has been sufficient for our needs.
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText LoadRunner Professional provides scalable testing with high user counts, diverse protocols, but may require careful consideration of resource needs.
Sentiment score
7.4
Selenium HQ is scalable and efficient for large scenarios, though hardware and configuration can impact performance.
We look at the scalability because we are using the SaaS model now.
Assistant Director at Synapxe
We can execute thousands of test cases weekly, and our automation coverage using Selenium HQ is approximately eighty-five percent.
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering is highly stable and reliable, preferred over other tools despite minor bugs.
Sentiment score
7.0
Selenium HQ is stable across platforms, with minor issues in Internet Explorer; most find Chrome and Firefox satisfactory.
I see it is stable, though there are some glitches or latency sometimes.
Assistant Director at Synapxe
Selenium HQ is a scalable solution; it has been in production for the last two years, but I have been working on it for the last six years, so it is definitely scalable.
DevOps Lead at Illumifin India LLP
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText LoadRunner Professional is expensive and complex, needing simplification, better integration, automation, and enhanced reporting features.
Selenium HQ requires better browser support, enhanced reporting, frequent updates, mobile testing, improved documentation, and user-friendly features.
I find that AI functionality in OpenText LoadRunner Professional should be improved and more accessible.
Assistant Consultant at Tata Consultancy
An automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
I don't know if we have that capability to provide different data sources such as SQL Server, CSV, or maybe some other databases, so that kind of capability would be great.
DevOps Lead at Illumifin India LLP
 

Setup Cost

OpenText LoadRunner Professional offers flexible scaling and support but may be costly compared to competitors due to additional user fees.
Selenium HQ is a cost-effective, open-source tool, though additional expenses may arise for maintenance, implementation, and expertise.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText LoadRunner Professional offers robust scripting, analytics, diverse protocol support, and advanced scaling for efficient performance testing.
Selenium HQ provides cost-free, adaptable, cross-platform testing with customization, CI tool compatibility, and a supportive community.
The scripting language is quite comfortable for us since we are working with C and C++.
Assistant Director at Synapxe
The most valuable feature of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is the analysis part that is really good, along with the support for multiple protocols.
Assistant Consultant at Tata Consultancy
Selenium HQ supports multiple browsers via grid hosting and offers dynamic configuration setup for testing across Chrome, Edge, and Internet Explorer.
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
When we were doing these tests manually, it took several hours of effort, and those hours, when counted on the basis of person days, used to be maybe six or seven months of effort, which we can now do every day by running the pipeline.
DevOps Lead at Illumifin India LLP
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Professional Perfo...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (2nd), Load Testing Tools (2nd)
Selenium HQ
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (4th), Regression Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is designed for Performance Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 14.4%, up 13.9% compared to last year.
Selenium HQ, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 4.2% mindshare, up 3.6% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)14.4%
Tricentis NeoLoad11.6%
Apache JMeter9.8%
Other64.2%
Performance Testing Tools
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Selenium HQ4.2%
Tricentis Tosca9.8%
OpenText Functional Testing7.2%
Other78.8%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SR
Assistant Director at Synapxe
Has enabled my team to identify bottlenecks effectively and deliver reliable performance analysis across projects
I have mentioned many advantages about this product, but to discuss disadvantages or areas that could be improved, I would need to consult with my engineers who are working on it. So far I have not heard of any significant issues. I can gather specific improvement suggestions from my architect and provide that information later.
Sri Durga U - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Quality Engineer Data at Epsilon
Offers versatility in testing automation while improvements can elevate its capabilities
I currently use Jenkins and Maven for framework development. The flow involves creating the project with Maven, and once test case execution is completed locally, we push the jobs to Jenkins. It automatically triggers the executions in Jenkins so everyone in the team can see the execution report and status. I would rate the solution at 60% out of 100. Previously, troubleshooting was difficult. When test cases fail for various reasons, logs cannot explain everything, but logging is very important to get the failure results. For logging, Amazon Q will suggest where the log code needs to be included. In Jenkins, when the code is executed and results are viewed, we can easily identify where the error occurred and troubleshoot efficiently, reducing time by two to three hours. I can recommend many packages with Selenium HQ. Wait conditions and numerous features are available to use. I recommend most of them to individuals. My overall rating for Selenium HQ is 7 out of 10.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
899,125 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Penetration and Neoload Tester at a university with 501-1,000 employees
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
16%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise67
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise33
Large Enterprise52
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
I have mentioned many advantages about this product, but to discuss disadvantages or areas that could be improved, I would need to consult with my engineers who are working on it. So far I have not...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
I work only with the performance testing tools and not with OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) for mobile and web applications. With performance testing, I am t...
How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
I will give an eight for my satisfaction with the pricing and licensing costs of Selenium HQ.
What needs improvement with Selenium HQ?
Some improvements can be implemented as compared to Playwright, which is why I rate it seven out of ten.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
SeleniumHQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: May 2026.
899,125 professionals have used our research since 2012.