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

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) 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 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)
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 Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) and Original Software Qualify aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is designed for Performance Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 16.6%, up 13.6% 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 Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)16.6%
Tricentis NeoLoad13.9%
Apache JMeter9.1%
Other60.4%
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

HelenSague - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Performance Testing Specialist at Canadian Pacific Railway
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.
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 reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports."
"I think it's been the backbone of performance testing for 20+ years and must be given credit for helping establish the discipline."
"The feature we've found most valuable for us is the number of protocols available."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner is the best tool in the market."
"It's helped my organization to identify performance problems in the test environment before they occur in production."
"This is a stable product - I've dealt with it over the past 15 years and it's stable."
"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."
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"Flexible software with multiple functions, e.g. scenario deployment, new entity creation, workflow creation, etc. Technical support for this software is very good."
"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."
 

Cons

"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients; it eats lots of memory, so usually, I have two or three load generators while I have the one controller."
"The technical support is not as great as we expected them to be."
"We still have some issues with integration with things like SiteScope which, obviously, being another HPE product should be very straightforward, but there are always issues around that."
"The extended features are available but the high pricing is an issue."
"The debugging capability is difficult to use and should be improved."
"We encountered issues with stability -- the system hangs many times."
"I would rate it 6 out of 10, because LoadRunner is a vast thing, starting from those scenarios and then getting more into users, putting more points, correlation, load testing, and benchmarking."
"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

"The solution's pricing is expensive."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of users."
"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."
"The pricing model and the software licensing model could be better."
"The price is a bit on the high side, but it is still affordable."
"It is reasonable. We pay the cost, but we have everything. We have a big set of licenses for SAP and other applications. We have all kinds of licenses."
"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."
"I don't know the licensing cost, but I think that you would get a discount for normal usage. I think there are different yearly options for different types of usage. It is not only how many users, but also whether it is shareable or not and other criteria involved in each feature. There are additional fees for the users and hardware linked to the processing."
"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.
 

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
Outsourcing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
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 Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise67
No data available
 

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...
What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
I can provide additional advice after consulting with my team. I am open to being contacted via email for any clarifications about my review. I rate OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (L...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
Qualify
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
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.