Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo

Top 10 OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Alternatives

Vendor: OpenText
4.2 out of 5
Badge Leader
2,223 followers
Start review

Top OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, and Perfecto. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) surpasses its competitors by offering robust scalability, comprehensive testing features, and seamless integration capabilities, ensuring efficient performance testing and improved application quality across various platforms and environments.

OpenText Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with OpenText, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
Apache JMeter
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
Apache JMeter
3.9 out of 5
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ideal for enterprises needing robust protocol support and detailed analysis. In comparison, Apache JMeter is cost-effective and open-source, suitable for smaller budgets seeking flexibility and ease of use. Each meets different business needs effectively.
Download Apache JMeter vs. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Report
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) has a higher setup cost compared to Apache JMeter, which is open-source and boasts minimal initial expenses, making Apache JMeter a cost-effective alternative for budget-conscious users.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) has a higher setup cost compared to Apache JMeter, which is open-source and boasts minimal initial expenses, making Apache JMeter a cost-effective alternative for budget-conscious users.
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
Tricentis NeoLoad
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
Tricentis NeoLoad
4.1 out of 5
LoadRunner Enterprise offers extensive protocol support for large enterprises with comprehensive integration capabilities. In comparison, NeoLoad provides a cost-effective, user-friendly solution suitable for smaller teams, featuring flexible licensing and ease of deployment with modern protocol support.
Download OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. Tricentis NeoLoad Report
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) highlights a more structured setup cost, while Tricentis NeoLoad offers flexibility in its pricing structure, differentiating their approach to onboarding and initial costs for potential users.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) highlights a more structured setup cost, while Tricentis NeoLoad offers flexibility in its pricing structure, differentiating their approach to onboarding and initial costs for potential users.
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
Perfecto
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
Perfecto
4.2 out of 5
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise offers extensive testing capabilities with customizable scripts, making it ideal for teams that require centralized monitoring and complex integration. In comparison, Perfecto focuses on cross-platform mobile testing with a cloud-based device lab, emphasizing scalable device testing and detailed reporting.
Download OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. Perfecto Report
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) often involves higher setup costs, while Perfecto offers a more cost-effective setup. Perfecto's lower initial expenses make it a more attractive option for budget-conscious users compared to LoadRunner Enterprise.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) often involves higher setup costs, while Perfecto offers a more cost-effective setup. Perfecto's lower initial expenses make it a more attractive option for budget-conscious users compared to LoadRunner Enterprise.
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
BlazeMeter
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
BlazeMeter
4.1 out of 5
LoadRunner Enterprise excels in protocol support and real-time analytics, ideal for complex scenarios. In comparison, BlazeMeter provides cloud-based flexibility and easy open-source integration, appealing for global traffic simulations. Tech buyers may choose based on specific deployment needs and pricing strategies.
Download BlazeMeter vs. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Report
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering offers variable setup costs, while BlazeMeter provides a flexible pricing model. OpenText's initial setup requires more planning, contrasting with BlazeMeter's straightforward implementation process.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering offers variable setup costs, while BlazeMeter provides a flexible pricing model. OpenText's initial setup requires more planning, contrasting with BlazeMeter's straightforward implementation process.
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
ReadyAPI
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
ReadyAPI
3.9 out of 5
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise provides extensive protocol support and scalability for performance testing, ideal for simulating numerous virtual users globally. In comparison, ReadyAPI focuses on API testing, integrates well with CI/CD environments, and offers flexible pricing for specific functionalities.
Download OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. ReadyAPI Report
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) offers a more complex setup with higher costs, while ReadyAPI provides a straightforward and budget-friendly setup, making it a more accessible option for those with limited resources.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) offers a more complex setup with higher costs, while ReadyAPI provides a straightforward and budget-friendly setup, making it a more accessible option for those with limited resources.
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
Oracle Application Testing Suite
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering excels in integration and protocol support while offering diverse deployment options, though it faces challenges with UI responsiveness. In comparison, Oracle Application Testing Suite offers smooth Oracle integration and budget-friendly pricing but needs improvement in desktop automation and browser compatibility.
Download OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite Report
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) has an affordable initial setup, while Oracle Application Testing Suite involves higher upfront costs. Oracle's offering may appeal to businesses prioritizing advanced features despite increased setup expenses compared ...
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) has an affordable initial setup, while Oracle Application Testing Suite involves higher upfront costs. Oracle's offering may appeal to businesses prioritizing advanced features despite increased setup expenses compared ...
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
Eggplant Performance
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering excels with superior pricing and detailed customization options. In comparison, Eggplant Performance offers advanced simplicity through scriptless automation. OpenText appeals to budget-focused buyers, while Eggplant's AI-driven analytics attract those seeking innovation despite higher initial costs.
Download Eggplant Performance vs. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Report
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise has a moderate setup cost, offering comprehensive features for large enterprises, whereas Eggplant Performance presents a lower initial setup cost, appealing to cost-conscious businesses seeking efficient performance testing solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise has a moderate setup cost, offering comprehensive features for large enterprises, whereas Eggplant Performance presents a lower initial setup cost, appealing to cost-conscious businesses seeking efficient performance testing solutions.
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
Akamai CloudTest
3.8 out of 5
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
Akamai CloudTest
3.8 out of 5
LoadRunner Enterprise excels in handling complex testing with robust reporting, making it ideal for deep scenario analysis. In comparison, Akamai CloudTest offers faster deployment and innovative analytics, appealing to those prioritizing adaptability and real-time insights in cloud environments.
Download Akamai CloudTest vs. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Report
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering has a moderate setup cost, offering a balance of features and pricing, while Akamai CloudTest involves a higher setup expense, reflecting its positioning for scalable, high-demand performance testing environments.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering has a moderate setup cost, offering a balance of features and pricing, while Akamai CloudTest involves a higher setup expense, reflecting its positioning for scalable, high-demand performance testing environments.
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
SmartBear LoadNinja
3.7 out of 5
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering offers comprehensive features for large-scale applications, preferred for detailed analysis and customization. In comparison, SmartBear LoadNinja is chosen for its ease of use and speed, providing scriptless testing, rapid deployment, and immediate feedback with a user-friendly interface.
Download OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. SmartBear LoadNinja Report
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) has a higher setup cost compared to SmartBear LoadNinja, making LoadNinja a more cost-effective choice for those prioritizing setup value in their performance testing tools.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) has a higher setup cost compared to SmartBear LoadNinja, making LoadNinja a more cost-effective choice for those prioritizing setup value in their performance testing tools.
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
Ixia IxLoad
1 out of 5
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
Ixia IxLoad
1 out of 5
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering appeals to tech buyers with its ease of deployment and superior customer support. In comparison, Ixia IxLoad attracts with its enriched analytics and comprehensive protocol support, despite its higher cost, meeting the needs of complex protocol testing.
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise has a relatively high initial setup cost, while Ixia IxLoad offers a more budget-friendly setup. Considerable differences in cost structures highlight distinct budget preferences for initial implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise has a relatively high initial setup cost, while Ixia IxLoad offers a more budget-friendly setup. Considerable differences in cost structures highlight distinct budget preferences for initial implementation.
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
IBM Rational Test Workbench
3.8 out of 5
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering offers favorable pricing and support with robust load testing and scalability. In comparison, IBM Rational Test Workbench provides comprehensive automation and detailed analytics. OpenText's ease of deployment contrasts IBM's complexity, appealing to different testing needs.
Download IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Report
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) features a moderate setup cost, while IBM Rational Test Workbench incurs a higher initial expenditure, highlighting a key distinction in cost-efficiency between the two performance testing solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) features a moderate setup cost, while IBM Rational Test Workbench incurs a higher initial expenditure, highlighting a key distinction in cost-efficiency between the two performance testing solutions.
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
Automai AppLoader
1 out of 5
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering offers detailed analytic reports and comprehensive protocol support. In comparison, Automai AppLoader excels in integration and flexibility, catering to diverse environments. Automai AppLoader ensures quick deployment and cost-effective options, while OpenText targets deep analysis with scalable deployment potential.
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) has a significant setup cost, whereas Automai AppLoader offers a more affordable setup, making it a cost-effective option.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) has a significant setup cost, whereas Automai AppLoader offers a more affordable setup, making it a cost-effective option.
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Logo
ReadyAPI Performance
4.0 out of 5
LoadRunner Enterprise excels in handling complex, distributed performance testing with robust reporting. In comparison, ReadyAPI Performance offers simplicity and efficiency in API testing. LoadRunner's flexibility suits large enterprises, while ReadyAPI is ideal for cost-effective API solutions.
Download OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs. ReadyAPI Performance Report
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering requires considerable setup costs, while ReadyAPI Performance offers a more economical setup.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering requires considerable setup costs, while ReadyAPI Performance offers a more economical setup.

Related categories

Performance Testing Tools
Load Testing Tools
API Testing Tools