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

OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) vs Original Software Qualify comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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 Core Performance E...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
47
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (4th), Load Testing Tools (4th)
Original Software Qualify
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (29th)
 

Mindshare comparison

OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) and Original Software Qualify aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) is designed for Performance Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 7.8%, down 9.3% compared to last year.
Original Software Qualify, on the other hand, focuses on Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites, holds 0.9% mindshare, up 0.4% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud)7.8%
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)16.6%
Tricentis NeoLoad13.9%
Other61.699999999999996%
Performance Testing Tools
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Original Software Qualify0.9%
Jira11.5%
Microsoft Azure DevOps9.9%
Other77.7%
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

Mahendra Andhale - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Manager at Happiest Minds Technologies
Centralized cloud testing has improved global load generation and real-time performance insights
The most valuable features I have found in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) are that everything is online and centralized, so I do not need to go anywhere to check the configuration and everything. OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud)'s advanced analytics help identify performance bottlenecks because whenever we are executing the test scripts, it shows a good analytics view where we can simply check which APIs are not performing well. The cloud-based load generators in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) have benefited my testing setup because we can generate the load across the globe, which was previously a little bit difficult on the on-premises version. The user interface in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) is intuitive and this will be easy to communicate and collaborate amongst the team also because sharing the online URL with the team, they can simply check the analysis and everything.
Konstantinos Tasiopoulos - PeerSpot reviewer
Group Integration Tools Manager at TITAN
Flexible, multifunctional, and stable testing software with good technical support
I've been using the latest version of Original Software Qualify AQM. Over 100 users in our company use Original Software Qualify AQM. We only have two people in charge of its deployment and maintenance. This software is extensively used in our company. Personally, I recommend Original Software Qualify AQM to other people looking into implementing it. You can do a lot of things with this software. The support is very good. The communication is very good, and they also listen to problems raised. They add new features and functionalities as a response to past problems or issues. It's a very good tool and I recommend it. We've seen a return on investment from this software. I'm rating Original Software Qualify AQM a nine out of ten, because of several reasons: It's very good software, it's a supportive company, and we have very good results from it. This software also minimizes the effort of UATs, and it also allows us to deploy whatever we want.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution can scale."
"The product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"The usability and ability to integrate with other solutions is quite good. When I use it in on Azure, then Red Hat is the most likely solution I use. When I use AWS, then I tend to use Lambda functions. In either case, it works well and you can use it either way."
"One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols."
"The most valuable feature is having load generators in countries where we don’t have access to them."
"The most useful features of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud include getting load through the Performance Center, which is part of the cloud version, where we can monitor CPU and memory utilization, and response times."
"The TruClient feature is the most valuable for us. An application with testing can only be scripted using TruClient, so it's part web-based, but it also has its own protocol combined with HTTP and HTML. So many other tools do not recognize this specific proprietary protocol. Using TruClient, we can still create scripts that cover everything that we need to cover."
"Running a 300,000 test was very easy using StormRunner, as we just had to upload the script and create scenarios for 300,000 and run the test in 20 minutes."
"You can do a lot of things with this software; the support is very good, the communication is very good, they listen to problems raised, add new features and functionalities as a response to past problems or issues, and we have seen a return on investment from this software."
"Flexible software with multiple functions, e.g. scenario deployment, new entity creation, workflow creation, etc. Technical support for this software is very good."
 

Cons

"Regarding improvements in OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud), the initial configuration where we have to set up orchestration is something that could be improved."
"Because it is a paid tool, its cost is very high."
"It should have a feature to report with a 99.9 percentile success rate."
"Reporting and analysis need improvement. Compared to the old school LoadRunner Windows application, the reporting and analysis are mediocre in LoadRunner Cloud."
"The initial setup is complex, but that is the nature of the technology."
"One area for improvement in LoadRunner Cloud, especially for agile models, is its limited support for functional testing alongside its robust non-functional testing capabilities."
"I faced issues with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud support when a problem took three to four months to resolve, which negatively impacted our project, especially when key team members were unavailable during leave periods."
"Custom load patterns for the performance tests: Currently StormRunner Load supports only linear ramp up of the user load and doesn’t provide the user load to follow a step incremental load pattern or any other pattern that a performance tester wants to."
"The reporting engine of Original Software Qualify AQM needs to change. It's very difficult to develop complex reports. Its reporting function needs improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"LoadRunner always had expensive pricing. At my company, we used to evaluate LoadRunner, but we stuck with Silk Performer because its pricing was always better in the past. I do feel that I got a fair deal this time. Our value-added reseller and our sales guy worked hard to give us a fair deal. I feel that we got a fair deal. We did not go for the pay-as-you-go deal. I did an upfront package. I prefer that. I want to know what my costs are."
"We make use of virtual user hours. We buy time in the LoadRunner Cloud. It costs around $80,000."
"It is neither costly nor cheap. It is not too high and not too low. I know the price of other tools, and LoadRunner Cloud's price is in the medium range."
"It is expensive compared to other tools."
"It's a very expensive solution"
"There is no monthly or yearly cost but rather, the fees are based on the amount of traffic that you use."
"The pricing is very reasonable and the licensing is straightforward."
"Pricing is dependent on what you're referring to. If you're talking about the cloud, it's likely competitive. However, if you're talking about the on-premise version, professional or enterprise licenses are required. Prices are on the high side. They are not cheap."
"This software is moderately priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
13%
Construction Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Construction Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Healthcare Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise30
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Do you recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
I absolutely recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud. In fact, I consider it to be one of the best performance testing tools. I like it because it provides many benefits. Some of the ones I find to...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing shows it is very high and very costly.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) can be improved by incorporating code improvements. I would add that it reduces the initial setup complexity, improves the learning curve op...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud, StormRunner Load, LoadRunner Cloud, and Micro Focus StormRunner Load
Qualify
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Alfa Bank, N Brown Group, University of Copenhagen, McGraw-Hill, Cognizant
CertainTeed, Marston's,  Edrington, Ageas,  iPERS.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: October 2026.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.