OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Reviews

My organization uses OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise for anything related to browsers and the web. We have started using shift-left for applications. Costco primarily uses it for testing its various e-commerce applications and websites. We use the product to address challenges in performance testing within the applications.

It is our primary performance testing tool. There was a period when we weren't doing a heavy level of performance testing. It led to a couple of outages of our website, and we had to go ahead and slam LoadRunner into production to address problems with performance. We haven't had an outage since we started using the solution.

We use all the features in the solution. We use it for performance testing and load testing. We have been hearing more about third-party integration with chaos testing. It's certainly something we'd like to do more within Costco. We have also started implementing shift-left and DevWeb.

The tool must improve the ease of gathering and reporting when larger datasets are generated. It must provide better and more direct information. There's a lot of digging around to try and address issues when they arise. Anytime we bring up a window, and it's waiting to do something, it must give a visual indication that it's doing something.

I have been using the solution for four years.

There's a window where LoadRunner is very, very stable, but we're pushing that window hard. For our use case, the tool's stability is a five out of ten.

We struggle a lot with the tool's scalability. When we start using hundreds of load generators and generating tons of data, we find a lot of difficulty in managing the systems. We are wondering what we can do to deal with scaling out the infrastructure as it continues to grow within Costco. The product's scalability must be improved. For our use case, the tool's scalability is a five out of ten.

We have had issue issues with the support in the past. It's been improving, which is nice. I had some wonderful conversations with people at the event, so I hope to continue seeing that. The more communication we get, the better it is.

Neutral

The initial setup is complex. Our implementation of LoadRunner Enterprise is incredibly complex. We use a number of third-party tools to enforce and manage its continued running outside of what LoadRunner provides.

Anything that can stop something that produces a million dollars a day from breaking is good.

There are a lot of negotiations going on right now about the product's pricing. There is a bit of unhappiness on that aspect and how it's currently being presented versus how it was presented previously.

LoadRunner Developer’s shift-left process is becoming more and more important for us. It's a newer initiative for Costco. We are pushing towards it. We already have teams that have started doing lower-level performance testing. It'll continue to get adopted more and more as we push it out.

We are using the solution's TruClient feature. I work in administration. The people who work on scripting have some technical issues with TruClient's scripting. There are a number of scripts out there. LoadRunner Enterprise has helped streamline our testing processes. It is the only method of doing some of our testing processes. We find it very valuable.

Streamlining our testing processes has helped us through further improvements and validation that our systems are performing at the high level that we need them to perform.

LoadRunner Enterprise has reduced our workload. Without it, we wouldn't have performance testing, and things would break a lot more. LoadRunner Enterprise has helped improve our product quality. If it weren't there, things would break. The fact that we're still using LoadRunner is a pretty good sign.

LoadRunner Enterprise has helped us save time. Without it, things would break a lot more. Our primary experience with performance testing is with LoadRunner. I have played around with some other applications, and all of them have ups and downs. LoadRunner provides ease of use and a nice and concise interface.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We are from a banking background and have a desktop application that follows the complicated .NET protocol. It has a lot of encryptions, and we use the solution to do the scripting. 

We use the Enterprise version because it's not possible to do scripting with open source. We initially started with Professional and then moved to Enterprise. 

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise has improved the team's productivity. The results that I produce after the test help my team. 

The tool's most valuable features are scripting, correlations, and parameterization. Debugging is also easy. 

The debugging feature needs to include graphs. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The stability is good.

The product is scalable. 

The tool's support is good. Though they take time, they always fix my issues. 

Positive

We used JMeter before OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise. We switched to OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise because JMeter doesn't help to test encryptions and decryptions. 

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is worth its money. 

We used the Professional version and then moved to the enterprise version. We have subscribed to 1000 user licenses. The tool will be super expensive if we take up 5,000 user licenses. We have to limit ourselves on testing. 

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise helped us overcome debugging and scripting challenges. It has enabled us to manage projects. We have a place where we can put our results and scripts. It has streamlined our testing process. The tool has improved productivity and result quality. 

I use LoadRunner Developer. The tool reduces and makes our lives easier by recording the workflow and helping us identify the correlation. 

LoadRunner helps us save time. We can create the scripts for dynamic parameterization and automatic correlation in two hours. Earlier, it used to take five to six hours. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I use OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise to ensure the stability and performance of various technologies and platforms. We ensure that the platforms are performant and are able to run at the speeds the business requires. We also wanted to ensure stability as the code moves through our environment.

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise has allowed us to reduce incidents and focus and ensure code and quality are built into our delivery.

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise supports a number of protocols. The number of automation built into the platform, specifically in the analysis area, is valuable to us.

The process of upgrading LoadRunner can be difficult and time-consuming.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

The solution's stability is fine.

The tool is very scalable. We have had no issues.

Getting support sometimes is a struggle, and it takes a long time to get cases resolved. The support could be improved.

Neutral

Previously, we used LoadRunner Professional.

The deployment was complex. It is very important to us that LoadRunner offers flexible deployment options. I want to be able to deploy the solution in a fashion that is in the best interest of my organization.

We used a consultant to deploy the tool.

We have seen an ROI. The product is worth the money.

The tool is very expensive. It's probably one of its biggest weak points. As a capability manager for performance, it's a battle every year to substantiate the cost. There's an opportunity for OpenText to help us educate people who are not in the field.

We evaluated NeoLoad, Ranorex, JMeter, and the Silk portfolio. We chose LoadRunner because of the breadth of support. No other tool had the breadth of support.

We use the TruClient feature. We use TruClient for understanding webpage rendering. It's TruClient's strong suit. TruClient has been very important to us. Without it, we won't understand the JavaScript rendering the users see on the front end. TruClient is a great option if using standard HTTP is either unsuccessful or time-prohibited.

LoadRunner Enterprise has definitely helped streamline our testing processes. We're using it almost 24/7 to support a host of platforms across the enterprise. If we didn't have it in place, the organization would have hundreds of performance-related incidents every year. However, we don't have them because we're catching them.

Streamlining our testing processes allows us to meet business demands and keep up with very aggressive schedules. LoadRunner has a lot of capability straight out of the box. One of the best things about it is the automation that's built into it. It has a lot of automation and functionality that many other tools don't have.

LoadRunner Enterprise has helped me save time. LoadRunner Enterprise has helped improve our product quality by ensuring transparency between product, delivery, and test. With load testing, we can accurately inform the business of how the platform is doing. By doing so, we can ensure that expectations between product, business, and IT are aligned. If they're not, those issues can be addressed before we go to production.

Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We employed OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise for a diverse range of applications and objectives. Since we are in the healthcare industry, this solution helps us to manage the digitalization of the data and ensure successful end-to-end workflow.

It delivers multiple benefits across various aspects. We can efficiently monitor all of the system resources and network usage. It also helps us to identify performance bottlenecks, and optimize application performance.

The most beneficial features of the solution are flexibility and versatility in their performance. It is seamlessly handling a wide range of protocols and technologies.

Offering a direct integration feature would ensure a completely smooth experience. Until now, we had to use different tools running in the back to get a perfectly detailed analysis.

We have been using the solution for a couple of years. 

The stability is at a very high level. I would rate it nine out of ten.

If we put aside the licensing challenges, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise can stimulate numerous virtual users, making it suitable for testing large-scale systems. I would rate the scalability eight out of ten.

We didn't have many situations that required us to request assistance, but when we faced certain minor issues, they provided excellent support.

Positive

We used to utilize Apache JMeter, and it is a good solution, but OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise offers better features that are suitable for our business. Its flexibility in terms of building a CI/CD pipeline across the platforms is a benefit.

The initial setup process is straightforward for a simple type of server architecture. But if you are integrating separate test generator engines between the setups, it will require support from the supplier. It is important to have a strong understanding of performance-testing concepts. 

The suitability of the solution depends on the specific needs and requirements of an organization or project. It also depends on which model will be integrated and used, as does the price structure and the licensing. We are content with the pricing and find it to be reasonable in terms of value for money. The only challenge is when it comes to large enterprise companies that are working with multiple suppliers. The integration of licenses is very difficult or in some cases, impossible.

OpenText LoadRunner is the leading solution as of now. There are definitely other tooling options available in the market, but if you are searching for an enterprise-level solution, LoadRunner is the number one product.

Overall, we are pleased with the solution as it satisfies our requirements and meets our expectations. I would rate it eight out of ten.

We are using the solution for performance/load/stress testing of in-house business applications. We have various environments like web applications, cloud-based, SAP, and ERP products. Loadrunner will be used based on end-user requirements.

The main purpose of usage of this tool is to validate the performance of newly developed applications before they are deployed on production. This tool will help us to mimic end-user actions and measure response times from various locations in addition to checking the maximum concurrency supported.

The tools help us to validate the scalability of applications and the limitations of the end-user apps. The main purpose of usage of this tool is to validate the performance of newly developed applications before they are deployed on production. This tool will help us to mimic end-user actions and measure response times from various locations in addition to checking the maximum concurrency supported.

We have used this tool on multiple applications to measure the performance of the system under test. Loadrunner became our enterprise solution for performance testing.

The host performance testing of any application using a host/controller is the most valuable feature. This feature helps to replicate virtual users, configure multiple test scripts, and configure multiple simulators from various geographic locations to run a single test. There are a lot of configurations available to replicate browser cache/with no browser cache and network-related features prior to triggering any test.

The beauty of the host is that any tester can launch it and check the status of runs, monitor test statistics, etc.

The last few years I haven't seen the need for any improvements to the tool other than fancy stuff or maybe moving from client-server to PC or LoadRunner enterprise. There are a lot of tools in the market nowadays where you don't need to spend much time on scripting. Focus on improving the scripless capabilities.

There is not much value added when upgrading/migrating from older versions to newer versions. OpenText should focus on important features and make end-users like us go for Loadrunner/OpenText products as soon as they are in the market. 

We have been using the tool for the last 10+ years.

We did not previously use a different solution.

OpenText/Microfocus productions are costly. They need to focus on minimizing the cost.

We did not evaluate other options. 

Our organization uses the solution for testing the performance of applications mainly. At times, we have also used the services provided by the solution, like network virtualization and service virtualization.

The type of application support Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise has is very good. The solution does support a wide range of technologies and protocols. Plus, two features, network virtualization, and service virtualization, are really helpful. Apart from that, the way they have their billing scenarios, like the execution, is very good. We can also have a lot of flexibility in building various scenarios or a load test which is one good thing. I like the way they have made their reporting area. Using certain features in the solution, the insights one gets are very useful for understanding the performance issues in the application.

Some areas for improvement in the solution are mainly based on the fact that right now, in the market, there are emerging low-code or no-code platforms, like NeoLoad. In Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, we have to work on scripting. So, I need a skillful resource if I want to hire anyone. In the case of NeoLoad, a low-code environment, and platform, I don't have to search for a skilled resource. I can provide cross-skill training to the existing workforce, and they can work for me. In Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, I need to spend a lot of time training people, while on other low-code or no-code platforms, I need not invest that much time.

I have been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise for ten to twelve years. Also, I am using the solution's latest version. My company is just a customer of the solution.

It is a stable solution.

It takes time to build skills around Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. Also, a person who knows LoadRunner can work on any other tool since that person will know the basic concept of performance testing. There are a lot of users in my company who are using the solution, and if I were to give a count of the users, then it would be in the thousands. Presently, there is an increase in the usage of the solution and the number of users using the solution. Also, I don't have an idea of how the solution is being used by other teams which operate in other countries.

The solution has a good customer service and support team. I have dealt with them multiple times in the past, and they do support us wherever required. I rate the technical support team eight or nine out of ten. To be more concrete, I would rate them a nine.

Positive

The solution's initial setup process was straightforward.

The solution was deployed on the cloud.

The solution has all the capabilities. The only area they need to work on is the low-code platform which has started emerging in the market lately. If they could do something in that area, it would be a great overall tool in the market. Right now, it takes a lot of time for me to train people and get them onboarded. However, while I use other tools like NeoLoad, I can easily train my team.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

We use it for doing automation testing, and there are various teams that use it for performance testing, load testing, etc. For ALM, we use it to create requirements, test labs, and test plans and get our test results in.

LoadRunner Enterprise has helped our organization in being able to document everything and maintain the history. This way, in the future, if the product gets enhanced or new features get added, you know what was tested previously, and then you also have the new stuff. You have the history of those changes and all the testing that has been done.

We use the TruClient feature for browser-based testing, but I am not the end user for it. My guess is that it is helpful for reducing scripting work.

LoadRunner Enterprise has affected our users. Testing is obviously a must before you release a software product. The fact that you can automate some of the testing, and you can do stress testing, performance testing, and simulate a load as if users are actually using it helps a lot. You better understand how the application will operate when it gets into production, and if there are issues, you can spot those early on.

LoadRunner Enterprise has helped streamline our testing processes. We have a process in place for users who need access to it. There is a governance team for the rules and how the product should be used and not. There is a little bit more structure. Based on what I have heard in the organization, it does appear to help them. LoadRunner Enterprise makes it easier for them to be able to do their tasks. They can automate things without them having to manually do it.

LoadRunner Enterprise has helped save us time, but I do not have the metrics.

LoadRunner Enterprise has helped improve our product quality. We can spot issues early on. That helps a lot. This way, we are aware of the issue before we go live in production. We can remediate it before the product goes live.

With ALM, being able to write our test scripts and being able to document our test results are valuable. That comes in handy. This way, we have a record of the things that have been tested. There are also workflows that we can create, which are very helpful. 

With LoadRunner Enterprise, doing various types of performance testing, load testing, and automation testing has been very helpful for some of the teams.

I work more on the administration side. I am not a daily user, but especially during this conference, we are seeing that everything is going to the cloud. We are trying to see what are some of the benefits of going to the cloud.

I have seen some users report some issues, but I have personally not had any issues.

My organization was already using it when I joined, but I have personally been using it for over three years.

I have not seen any stability issues. I have seen some users report some issues, but we will usually open a case if we cannot figure it out.

With LoadRunner, you get load generators. You can add more as needed. Its scalability is fine.

We get our support through another vendor.

When I joined the team, they were already using it, so I do not know what they were using before.

I have been involved in the upgrades. If it is a patch or something small, it is less time-consuming, but if it is a major upgrade, it takes more time and more planning. We need to assess how long it will take, what resources are needed, and do we need to request new servers.

My guess would be that we have seen an ROI.

Overall, I would rate LoadRunner Enterprise a nine out of ten.

We do have an address to the client protocol we are using, and web streaming and web services. 

With LoadRunner, 80% of the cases will be supported. It has everything. It supports most features. It's very feature-rich.

The solution offers helpful guidelines and has good documentation.

While they keep on working on improving the tool level, the tool has instability in terms of loading and processing. There are a lot of times hanging issues up until version 11 or 11.2. After that, the productions are pretty stable. 

They changed the GUI. They had wanted to change the GUI to improve the look and feel. However, since that time, we see a lot of hanging issues.

The implementation process can be a bit complex. Even with 15 years of experience, I have trouble finding things. 

They need to make scalability functionality better.

We've raised hundreds of bugs in the Ajax TruClient protocol. I don't know how they are doing testing. However, they should test it in other scenarios. When you're releasing a protocol, the test coverage should be more. They need to do a better job at releasing a full product instead of releasing something half-done and fixing it along the way.

The solution is expensive. 

I've been using the solution for ten years. 

The solution does have some instability and hanging issues. It has to be improved as it is causing a business loss for them.

Scalability-wise, it has to improve in certain protocols. If you take Ajax TruClient, the memory consumption was very huge in the terms of the particular protocol. That needs to be somewhere where we can minimize the memory consumption to have more virtual users run on the system. 

People need to buy too many load generators to run their tests. Even for file users, we need a lot of load generators to run that.

We have seven to eight team members using the solution right now. 

We have been using it for the past 10 years with the same client. We have all the version upgrades happening from LoadRunner ALM products onwards. We went into the ALM Enterprise. And we were the people who raised hundreds of bugs in the Ajax TruClient protocol. 

We've dealt with lots of bugs, and we scheduled a meeting for support. They take some time to get to a solution. They'll sometimes take months to get a solution in place.

I understand it is not a small thing when you are launching a new protocol and all. However, they should have, before launching, fewer bugs. They need to take care of a lot of things before launching the product.

We've used JMeter, WebLOAD, and NeoLoad.

While Micro Focus' competition does offer a lot of tools, this solution does a better job of laying out guidelines.  There are examples and use cases, and they respond to questions. Those are the reasons people are still using them.

The installation process is a little complex. There has been confusion in terms of the Enterprise version and whatever they have in the exhibition suite. We call it ALM. The UI is not as user-friendly now with the changes they have made. It would help if they simplified their interface a bit. It might make implementation easier. 

It used to be simpler. Now we have a separate team that handles the setup.

We have two people available that can deploy and maintain the product.

We don't see an ROI as we mainly recommend the tool and clients use it.

It's a costly tool. When you are paying for something, there are expectations that it will work properly.

I'd rate the affordability at a two out of five. 

You do need to buy a few extra features that are not included in the main cost.

We are customers.

If a client has a budget, I would recommend the solution. It is a good tool. However, there are stability issues, and it does have a complex UI. It's good if you have specific protocols and specific requirements. When that is the case, there may be no other tool available. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.