We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional and RadView WebLOAD based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution helps my clients save time. It is easier to capture reports and improves product quality. The product helps to identify customer defects during performance tests and reduces workloads. The product has improved my client's user interaction. It has reduced peak load times."
"There are various languages that they allow those programs to be written in, whether you want to use Java or something else."
"It has good protocol coverage."
"The solution supports a lot of protocols."
"It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it."
"The front loader and the reporting features are the most valuable aspects of OpenText LoadRunner Professional."
"We don't find any features lacking. One of the most beneficial points we have from LoadRunner is we start sizing our infrastructure accordingly. So what we do is when we deploy a new workload, we do performance testing."
"I like LoadRunner's ability to use multiple protocols. That's one of the greatest features along with the ability to test service calls between the app and server."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting."
"The solution is simple and useful."
"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"Instead of having too many graphs and tabs, use the analysis section to get a more simplified defect analysis."
"Micro Focus has two separate products for web and mobile applications, which means you have to invest in both."
"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help."
"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."
"LoadRunner experiences high resource utilization. Even though we have machines with higher configurations, I've observed this behavior. Heavy traffic recording results in the tool hanging. So heavy traffic recording makes the tool slow."
"The tool needs to work on capture script feature."
"If the support of the protocols was the same throughout the other protocols and it was there evenly, then I would rate the product higher."
"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."
"There is no analytical dashboard."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews while RadView WebLOAD is ranked 11th in Performance Testing Tools with 9 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while RadView WebLOAD is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RadView WebLOAD writes "IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process but the reporting is complicated". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and ReadyAPI, whereas RadView WebLOAD is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, Apache JMeter, BlazeMeter and k6 Open Source. See our OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs. RadView WebLOAD report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.