Thanks for the replies to my comparison of LoadStorm and LoadRunner pricing. You make valid points. However, I do not see us as arguing because you are essentially agreeing with me. I have never made any negative statement about the quality of LoadRunner. David's point in the initial tweet was that LoadRunner is powerful, but for most developers the cost and learning curve make the LR solution a non-starter.

LoadStorm vs. LoadRunner is not apples to apples when comparing features. But for a product manager to make a statement that implies his tool is the only way you are going to get accuracy is simply naive at best. Blindly arrogant at worst.

Let's consider an analogy. I can buy a new Rolls-Royce Phantom for about $450,000. It is undisputable among most reasonable people that this car would be a premium solution to my transportation needs. It would provide many outstanding features and exquisite comfort.

There are alternatives. A Mercedes or a Honda sedan may be a better solution to one's transportation requirements. For my standard of living, my Honda provides the comfort, reliability, safety, acceleration, and features that I need at a price that fits my budget.

We could compare the Phantom to a Learjet (yes, that's how it is spelled on Wikipedia). My research shows that you can buy one for approximately $20,000,000. It has special capabilities that the Rolls-Royce cannot provide in a transportation solution. It's features and comfort are, shall we say, above average.

Now, if I begin to compare these options for transportation, would I be a fool not to choose the Learjet? Would anyone argue that the Learjet is the only way I will get speed, accuracy, reliability, and confidence?

As I make comparisons, I certainly may evaluate the instrumentation supremacy in the Learjet over the other options. It possibly would be worthwhile to describe how the attention to details during the manufacturing process employed in Learjet production will ensure I have the best transportation solution. One could make the point that the redundancy and fault-tolerance in the Learjet will provide the only safe and reliable solution.

My experience tells me that such comparisons are an academic exercise that lead to nothing fruitful. In fact, you may already be laughing at the absurdity of comparing a Honda to a Learjet. Even a Rolls isn't comparable.

Why, then, when comparing LoadStorm to LoadRunner isn't price a fair factor in the equation? It is a fair factor in REALITY. Those of us that live in a world without a $1,000,000 budget for performance testing tools do indeed consider LoadStorm a viable option. Granted, it has limitations when compared to LoadRunner because it is designed to test web applications, not Citrix applications. Neither can a Rolls-Royce fly me to Europe. But you won't hear a sane person deriding an Mercedes-Benz E-class sedan based on its inability to reach speeds of 500 mph. Nor will a reasonable buyer pass up a Civic because it does not have retractable landing gear.

I welcome the replies and comments from performance engineers employed by Fortune 500 companies and expensive software performance consultants with LoadRunner training. You are free to point out all of the double-stitched leather, maximum speed, cruising altitude, and immaculate digitally controlled thrust reversers.

But for the love of Pete, will you please at least consider the reality of cost in the equation? Will you at least acknowledge that a sledgehammer is not always the best tool for the job?

My family is served very well by our 2 Hondas, 1 Toyota, and 1 Jeep. They all have strengths. The van is great for long vacations. The Jeep is outstanding climbing the mountain roads around here (Georgia Pass). The Civic gets about 40 mpg, and my daughter loves it.

I sure do wish I could own a Learjet. But it just isn't what I really need for my requirements.