OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) Reviews

Our primary use case for the solution is performance testing, validation and baseline testing. We deploy the solution on the cloud.

We find the ease of infrastructure maintenance and the enhanced capabilities of the cloud version, such as browser metrics, valuable.

The product price could be more affordable compared to similar products.

We have been using the solution for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup was straightforward, and it took approximately a day.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. My advice to users considering this solution is to pay attention to scheduling.

We primarily use this solution to deploy our apps to the server, for public use.

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.

The features on offer do everything we need them to.

I don't know of any features that should be added. The solution isn't lacking anything at this point. We're happy with what is on offer.

I have had seven years of experience using this solution. It's been quite a while at this point.

We're a customer. We don't have any business partnerships with the company.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten overall. The solution has been quite good and integrates well with other products. It has all of the features we need and isn't really lacking anything that we've noticed.

I have been using LoadRunner Cloud for performance testing.

LoadRunner Cloud allows us to do performance testing without having to create our own physical infrastructure and set up a load generator. Normally, these steps would be required.

The most valuable feature is that you can create an infrastructure on-demand and do performance testing with it. There is no need to create physical infrastructure.

Using this solution does not require the use of a load generator.

Improvements to the reporting would be good.

Technical support can be improved.

I have used LoadRunner Cloud in only one project so far, for a period of about three months.

I have found this to be a very stable product.

I only needed to simulate 40,000 users for my project but I understand that it will work for up to 2,000,000 users. That is huge and I can say that scalability is very good.

This vendor, Micro Focus, is not very good at technical support.

I have used some open-source tools and LoadRunner Cloud is more straightforward to use.

The initial setup is normal and I have not found any complexity with it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use it to get response times around the world for external applications. We use it on top of our own virtual users for remote site testing. We include it in our scenarios in our performance center and use the results in the LoadRunner analysis tool.

We can determine response times for our external applications, from most places around the world, for a small fee.

The most valuable feature is having load generators in countries where we don’t have access to them.

An area for improvement is analytics on why response times are slow from certain countries. Slowness can be caused by the laptop, the connection, the VPN, the internal network, the country's internet, etc.

It has been stable every time I have used it. We don’t put much stress on it since we have our own performance center and load generators.

In terms of integration and configuration of the product in our AWS environment, it is the easiest Micro Focus tool I have ever used.

The pricing is very reasonable and the licensing is straightforward.

You decide on the number of virtual users you will need to support multiple runs or for a year and purchase that quality of virtual-user hours. We chose to procure this solution via the AWS Marketplace because of remote site testing and low cost.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten. It addresses a need in performance testing tools and is easy to purchase and use.

The best benefit would be budget. It's a really inexpensive if you are testing your application every spring or every month. Even for less frequent applications that you have to test regularly. You can hook up your infrastructure to StormRunner Cloud and you can get the best of both worlds.

In larger enterprises, we have different departments using Performance Center and StormRunner or Selenium. So, StormRunner can act like an umbrella and plug-in everything, get it executed or done across the world. Since they use both HPE Cloud, AWS, and Microsoft, it uses more access points geographically to test it making it best of the class.

StormRunner itself is a pretty good hybrid product of Performance Center. Keeping up with DevOps, thus the best feature of StormRunner is that we don't have to build and maintain infrastructure anymore. Whenever we have to test lab scale applications, and in a scenario where we don't have to test every day, we don't have to build the machines and pay for it. Instead, we can get the infrastructure from on-demand from StormRunner, and its ability to run it anywhere just by opening it in browser is the best part. The evolution of StormRunner starting with supporting LoadRunner along with the open source technologies like JMeter and Selenium. Their unit testing tools are actually very advanced in the region of the product. That's why I would recommend anyone to use StormRunner, even though something is not supported now, eventually it's going to be supported by StormRunner. That's the kind of credibility that's needed for any customer when it comes to relying on a product or going for a new product.

More insight into test results and allowances. It might be a tailor-made requirement for me, but I would like to download them offline and do my own customizations on the reports. Right now, we have some standard templates that generates reports. But if I had to do some customizations, include something else and create a report, it's not easy. So, if I can an order to download the raw data I can make custom report. That would be the case with every customer because even though they tested one product it might be part of a big project and they need to have other information included in it along with the report, so feasibly it is good to have.

Also, it's evolving, where there's too many features for me to handle and it's too much on my plate to any make ROI out of it.

There is a steep learning curve for the product, too.

Over the last couple of years, it's been evolving. We started using more in the last one year and we see it's pretty stable. Adding new features to StormRunner is going to slow down once it has every feature. That has to do with stability and I don't see any drawback in that.

We haven't really hit any scalability issues by using StormRunner, but I just now heard that they can support two million users, which is kind of astonishing. The max I have used is 40,000 users, but two million is good, too. It's big step up from 40,000.

At the same time, you don't have to get the infrastructure built and set it up. For example, let's say you had to test it for one million users. You don't have to procure all of the machines you need for the one test you're going to do. You can do it on demand, that's the best thing. Two million is still very much overboard, but it's good to know. It's good to know that there's no limitation nearby.

I'm not a big fan of the tech support to be frank. SaaS tech support (HPE tech support or Micro Focus), there's a gap between the people who access our tickets and the people who know the product. So, there is always a blind exchange of information within Micro Focus and most of the time get frustrated with the kind of ticket updates we get. What happens is the person handling the ticket might not be an expert in the product so we end up redoing everything. Communicating everything about our setup and infrastructure and the customer engagement for each ticket. Therefore, we started involving our technical correspondent with Micro Focus, but we're told that it's a pretty messy situation over there.

I always thought it would be good to have something like this from HPE because we rely a lot on HPE. Then, StormRunner was released and I knew where exactly it was going and what's it would be for us.

I was involved in the initial setup. It was straightforward and there was a lot of good information available, but I did not need it. I didn't go through any support to set it up. The documentation itself was good.

The other product we considered was BlazeMeter. We eventually chose StormRunner. I think only those two are pretty much in the market - nothing else.

I like that StormRunner incorporates the idea of accepting and adapting all open sources. It is my understanding that they are planning to continue accepting, supporting, and adapting all open sources.

For someone evaluating StormRunner and similar products, there are two parameters I would tell him to evaluate:

1. Is the application under test? Is it customer facing?
2. Is how often do you test it?

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: We are a retail business. The first thing I look for is any customer use case, or case study for the vendor. I look to see if they have proven that they are good resource for any existing retail customers. I look for any kind of case study in those lines before I jump in.

Its ability to work well with other HP products, particularly SiteScope, allows us to maintain consistency in our infrastructure. The different solutions work seamlessly together and free up resources that would otherwise be spent on conflicting vendors and products.

It's fast, easy to use, has a user-friendly UI, and you can split users. It also works well with SiteScope and other HP products.

It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need.

Also, a lot of our customers have issues logging into the cloud.

It's been stable.

It scales fine because our customers are usually larger.

Technical support is something we're not so happy with.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It's very valuable because with StormRunner we can validate the capacity of our systems. Specifically, we use it for one system that is from two years ago. We have an increment of the users, about 300% more, so we need to assure that the quality of the service keeps up with the users. StormRunner helps us to validate that.

Right now, we are just starting to use it. I don't have any comments on that.

Less than a year.

Yes, it's stable. We don't have any issue right now with the performance or anything like that.

It's very flexible. We can have load testing for 100 users, maybe 1,000 or even more, so yes, no problem with that.

It's very good. We also have support from our partner, Micro Focus, so it's basically good on that.

No, it was straightforward. It was very easy to implement and to have a load test.

This solution is SaaS based so we can utilize cloud technology, which is less time consuming and saves a lot of of money.

Sometimes, you are utilizing one of the low generators, then all of a sudden if you discontinue from one project, it actually deletes the entire low generator. You have to go through all the setup again. This kind of problem is on and off. It comes and goes.

We have just been using it for about two months now.

This is a new product, so there are a couple of flaws, sometimes things act up weirdly. We reach out to the support group, they solve the issues. It's an ongoing process. We understand that.

Since this is a new solution, they need to improve the support. They also have some lack of expertise. We understand that.

It is complex. You need to convince the leadership and the IT security team. You need to solve all these issues. There are a lot of things that you have to go through.

We chose this one because of the name. It's established, the last decade. We used to be with this company. Micro Focus is more than seven or eight years, we're good with them, they are good with us.

It's a new product and we are facing some issues. We believe, they are going to work out at their end. They are going make it work and fix everything, whatever the flaws are now.

Overall, we are using this to save money and utilize the cloud technology.