OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Reviews

The product is very user-friendly. It is the best in the market when it comes to performance testing and load testing. It gives accurate results. No other tool can match the product’s report quality.

The solution should increase the free users limit to 500 for all Micro Focus products.

I have been using the solution since 2019.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability a ten out of ten.

The support team needs to be more coordinated.

The solution should decrease its price.

A lot of people choose JMeter because it is free. However, JMeter is not as good as LoadRunner. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We have used it for most of our web-based application testing. We have more than 25 applications that are tested with this tool, with a load of more than 1,000 users as well. It's mostly for the enterprise applications like CRM or Citrix, as well as the Google Toolkit applications, and then there are the different protocols that this particular LoadRunner supports, like through clients or APS services. Those are where we can capture and run our tests with the LoadRunner.

Looking at the load of more of the applications and the testing needs have definitely been met. Even new users or interns can manage the solution, so there's a low learning curve.

It's a market leader and a pioneer. People enjoy working on it. It helps give them a career boost and opens up opportunities. 

What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution. With it, you could do reports and it does all the statistics, and then you can do the cross-verification or cross-analysis as well to look at comparisons. Those are fascinating.

The installation is quick.

The UI and how they show different methodologies of monitoring need improvement. We'd like to integrate data from different clouds as well as different servers. 

Integration can be tricky during the setup process. 

Technical support in not helpful or responsive. 

They have been doing a lot actually to improve the product right now. 

I've been using the solution for more than ten years. 

Most of the time, the solution is stable. If our environment is stable, the solution is reliable. 

The solution can scale. We've been using it for most users and have been increasing our servers - and they have LoadRunner installed on them. We are expanding usage. However, the cost may be a deciding factor. 

We have six people using it in our company.

Support is very poor. We've had a very frustrating experience with them. Initially, when you raise issues with them, they always send a link to some sort of document that is useless to us. After two or three follow-ups on our end, we might start getting answers. Once we escalate further, we get to the professionals, and only then will we get to a solution.

Negative

We previously used IBM's Rational Robot, as well Silk Performer.

The installation was quick, however, getting integration and getting the data flowing, that's tricky. We need to rely entirely on the Micro Focus team for that. It's not like we can do it in-house. Though we know how to install it, there are a lot of complications when we try to go through it. 

We had three people deploy the solution and two people are available for maintenance. 

We had the Micros Focus team assist us with the initial setup process. 

We have witnessed an ROI, however, when you take into account how we're costing it's likely not a helpful number to share. 

The solution is pretty expensive. I can't speak to the exact cost. I'd rate it three out of five in terms of affordability.

We did evaluate one or two other options before choosing LoadRunner. We looked at Silk Performer and another solution called Compuware. 

I am not using the latest version of the solution.

While we use on-premises deployments right now, we are starting to look into the cloud. 

I'd advise potential new users to look at their budget. If it's a larger enterprise, LoadRunner will make sense due to the big environment. If budget is a concern for a company, it may be better to look at other options. 

I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

Mostly it's to test APIs. That's been the main use case.

I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself. You can make a quick change.

The setup is straightforward. 

It's a stable solution. 

Support is helpful. 

Honestly, there really isn't any area for improvement. I think it's a great product.

Maybe the scroll bars could be a little bit bigger.

The solution is expensive. 

If they had an easy integration with, let's say, New Relic or Dynatrace, that would be something interesting. If we can see server monitoring data in the LoadRunner report, that would be ideal.

I've been using the solution for one year.

The product is reliable. It's stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We don't have too many people on the solution right now. We have ten to 15 people using it. We're using it almost daily. It's used 60% to 70% of the time. 

Support has been okay. Yeah, they've been pretty knowledgeable about everything. Responses are generally on time. I typically get a response within a day or so.

Positive

We previously used WebLOAD. In WebLOAD, to set it up, if your script needs to use a data file, it's a wizard. It takes six or seven steps to set it up. In LoadRunner, it's a lot easier. It doesn't take that long. It's a very straightforward process.  

The other thing is, RadView uses JavaScript language for the script, whereas LoadRunner uses C. LoadRunner recently has given the option for testers to use JavaScript as well. You can add more users on a LoadRunner test. Their load gens are more scalable. They allow more users with load gen than with RadView.

Right now, we tend to prefer LoadRunner.

The implementation was very straightforward. 

I'd rate the process four out of five in terms of ease of implementation. 

The entire implementation process was handled in-house. We did not use any consultants or integrators. 

I don't know this as a fact. However, I've heard that LoadRunner is pricey.

I have heard from different customers that although LoadRunner's a great product, sometimes they are looking for alternatives, since the pricing model for LoadRunner's very expensive. Sometimes customers will look at other options for testing tools due to the cost.

I'm an end-user.

I'd recommend the solution. For API testing, LoadRunner, getting the script developed in LoadRunner is very straightforward. It's not super difficult. You can get a REST API script in LoadRunner done within an hour if you have all the information and if you know the HTTP headers and stuff like that. You can get it up and running in an hour. 

I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten. I would give them a perfect score if the pricing was better.

LoadRunner Enterprise's best feature is the detailed reporting structure.

Micro Focus's technical support could be more responsive.

I've been working with LoadRunner Enterprise for six years.

LoadRunner Enterprise is stable.

LoadRunner Enterprise is scalable.

Micro Focus's technical support could be more responsive.

The initial setup is straightforward and takes around fifteen minutes.

LoadRunner Enterprise's price is high, but it gives more value for money than some cheaper alternatives.

I've also evaluated JMeter, but it doesn't support as many protocols as LoadRunner Enterprise.

I would rate LoadRunner Enterprise ten out of ten.

The primary use case of the solution is for testing.

The most valuable feature is the Vuser protocols.

The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and by including autocorrelation capability.

I have been using the solution for one and a half years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward and usually takes a couple of hours to complete.

I give the solution a seven out of ten.

I recommend that anyone that wants to use the solution first have their requirements written out.

We use Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise for load testing and stress testing. We also use it for running performance schedulers during specific times. We also use the solution to determine testing trends. We're using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise less for TruClient because the TruClient protocol takes up a lot of memory.

What I like most in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the comparison between two different exhibitions which gives value to my company. I also like that the solution is user-friendly, especially in terms of making specific changes. For example, in the past, you can't see the changes when you upload scripts into the Performance Center, but now, it has that visibility, so whenever you want, you can change the script in the Performance Center.

I also like that Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the only tool you can utilize for all your needs, even for different protocols and scripting. The solution also has the latest features, for example, networkability, where it can, within the UI, follow the waterfall model. You can use the insights in the Performance Center of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise to address or test URLs that usually take up much time.

A room for improvement in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is that it should take multiple exhibitions for a particular scenario and have automatic trending for that. This will be a very useful feature that lets users look into how many exhibitions happened for the scenario and their performance, and you should be able to see the data within the Performance Center dashboard.

For example, there's one scenario I'm focusing on multiple times in a month, and if I check five times, there's no way for me to see the trend and find out how it went with those five exhibitions. It would be great if the Performance Center has a view of all five exhibitions, particularly transaction by transaction, and how they happened. If Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise shows you the time trends, information about one exhibition to another, and how each performed, it'll be an immense feature, and that should be visible to every user.

Reporting should be simpler in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. If I did a scenario with one exhibition now, and I did that scenario again, then I should be able to schedule that scenario for the exhibition, and if that scenario is executed multiple times, there should be the option to turn it into a single view that shows you all the transactions, how the performance was, what the trend graph is for a particular time, etc.

The report from Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise would show you the difference between two exhibitions, if I did one today at 12:00 PM and another at 12:00 PM tomorrow, but if you want to see the difference between three or more exhibitions, the solution doesn't have that option. To see the difference, you'll need to do more work in terms of uploading files and doing the comparisons manually, and this should be improved.

An added feature I'd like to see in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is a converter. I'd also like a performance file extraction feature in the scripting alone. For example, if I'm using the JMX file, I should be able to convert it within the solution, same with other files such as the HAR and PCAP files. Whatever performance file is there, if I can extract it and make a script, that would be a very valuable addition to Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. Another example is if you're not able to record the script in the solution, if there is that option with a PCAP or HAR file, for example, a converter, that will add some value. There's a conversion for the HAR file, but with the PCAP file, I'm not so sure.

I've been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise for three years now.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is a very stable solution. My company only had to contact the Micro Focus team twice when there was an issue related to tailor-made requirements within my organization, but it wasn't because of a Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise feature, and other than that, I didn't see any issues regarding its stability.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is a scalable solution.

The technical support team for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is very responsive. My company contacted support about an issue that was related to requirements tailored to my organization and the team helped in resolving the issue and making the solution stable.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise has a very responsive technical support team that was upfront in informing my team when it's feasible to set up a meeting, and when the issue needs to be redirected to another person who's knowledgeable about it.

On a scale of one to five, I would rate the Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise technical support team four out of five.

Before Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, we used Apache JMeter which was the only other option because it's an open-source tool. It was deployed on-premises and not on the cloud.

We also used the normal version of the Performance Center before Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise which was two years prior and we had to install the Performance Center on-premises and set up load generators and load controllers. The Enterprise version we've been using for the past three years.

The main differences between Apache JMeter, the Performance Center, and Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise are the usability and insights given by the last two solutions. Both the Performance Center and Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise give more insights, and they also offer more automation versus Apache JMeter.

With Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise and the Performance Center, users can leverage a quick exhibition after setting up the scenario, doing quick checks, and creating reports, but in Apache JMeter, users have to manually set up, observe, and do the reports.

There are more features in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise as well as it's cloud-based versus Apache JMeter which is only a plug-in, so we have to do everything manually in Apache JMeter.

In terms of how easy or complex setting up Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is, I'm not the right person to ask because a different team handles the setup in my company. The solution is set up on the cloud, on-demand, and requires load generators or controllers, but I didn't take part in setting it up. I'm just an end-user that utilizes Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise.

As I'm an end-user of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise and not involved in its licensing, I don't have information on how much it costs.

I evaluated Apache JMeter before using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise.

In terms of the number of resources using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, I'm in a large organization, and in the beginning, there were ten resources. Nowadays, with the solution being tailor-made for my company, twenty-five to thirty resources belonging to different teams use Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise.

The solution is used every day as my company can't live without performance testing.

I'm rating Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise nine out of ten because it still has some room for improvement.

My company is a customer of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise.

I use the solution in my company for any type of testing that supports LoadRunner's protocols, like your web testing or app.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that the support is good, especially the one I am getting from OpenText. The tool is easy to work with if you know what to do. It has offered me some reliability against other products, like JMeter or some other tools. It has worked better for me anyway, most of the time. The tool makes it easy to implement the scripts.

The technical support offered by the product is an area of concern where improvements are required. It all depends on how my company manages the technical support offered by the product. My company does not deal directly with Micro Focus and would rather opt for professional services that have subscribed to Micro Focus. Even though the support is good, based on my experience, when I call the support, it goes to junior people first before it gets to a more technical person. I would want to get someone straight who can just be as technical as possible so I can resolve the issue quickly.

I have been using OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise for ten years.

It is a very stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

When it comes to how the product's scalability feature has impacted our company's testing capabilities, I would say that it is not something about the product but about performance testing. All the time, your performance testing always improves the quality of the product that you are about to deploy. The reporting in the tool is quite nice. It gives you detailed graphs, making it easy for businesses to understand things.

The licensing that the tool offers allows you to increase or get more licenses as quickly as possible instead of going through a whole process. You can just go to the portal and then download whatever licenses you want. Then, off you go. I think that is a very good model that I have seen since it makes things easier for users.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

In my company, we have a contact with whom I interact so that we can escalate our issues a bit quicker, and that helps a lot. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

The product is quite easy to install and involves a straightforward process.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises version.

The solution can be deployed in two to three hours.

I am not sure about the cost savings, but not having to deploy stuff that would not work on production is a reason why it has assisted our company.

The pricing is based on the licensing you require. The prices would differ depending on the number of licenses you need. I wouldn't maybe compare it to any other tools. I rate the price as seven out of ten.

I have compared the tool with JMeter.

I don't have any challenges whatsoever with the integration.

The AI part is something that may be ahead of where I am with the OpenText LoadRunner side because what we have been looking at now is the introduction of ALM Octane instead.

There is no need to do regular technical maintenance for the solution.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for our banking systems.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is on our own computer. We do all the development of scripting on our own computers. When we run the solution, we can run it on the cloud or in LoadRunner Enterprise.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to use and has flexibility that allows it to be used on a variety of applications.

The solution has something called True Client which makes it easy to create scripts if we have a big application with many steps. True Client is helpful when we record our scripts and we have the possibility to generate a standard script from the True Client script. I use True Client a lot.

The solution can be improved by adding more AI to the True Client feature.

The cost of the solution is high and can be improved.

I have been using the solution for over 25 years.

There are some problems with the solution's stability, so it's quite stable, but not totally stable. I give the stability an eight out of ten.

I give the scalability a ten out of ten.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to set up, record, and use. We have a department that is responsible for deployment.

I give the deployment a ten out of ten.

The implementation is completed in-house.

We found that the return on investment is around 50 percent, even if the tool is expensive. We have found bugs that would have been critical if we had pushed the application into production. The solution has made up for its cost by saving us from pushing faulty scripts into production.

I'm not sure if other similar solutions are cheaper, but Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is expensive, and could easily be 20 percent cheaper.

I give the cost a one out of ten.

I give the solution a ten out of ten. Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the best in the market, depending on what it is being used for. For API testing, we can find something cheaper. But the solution is good for that as well. For bigger applications that are Gooey-based, it's the best option.

Creating a script depends greatly on the type of application we have. If we have an API system, it will likely take less time to create a script since the developers have likely already set it up for us to use. However, if we have a lengthy application, it may take us days to create a single script.

We have between five and ten developers using the solution.

I recommend the solution, but it's expensive and only a big company could afford it. A small company wouldn't have the capacity to use the solution or the money to pay for it.

The product is good, and the concept is good as well.

Right now, we are in research mode, and we are yet to adopt the solution. The installation has not been straightforward, and we have had so many problems. We have had to re-install, try to install on a different machine, etc. We have not been able to launch the LRE server itself yet.

It's not a consistent solution. Sometimes, it's executes well, and at other times, graphics will not show up, or we'll need to restart the services, for example.

If I change my host controller, then my graphical report goes missing. I'd like to see this improved so that the graphical report is brought to the analysis. Only the LRE server is codable to give the HTML report.

Also, instead of uploading the script, it would be good to have a check-in/checkout option. At present, because the script is uploaded, the version control is missing. Version control sessions would be nice to have as well.

We have been using OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise for almost four to five months.

We need some guidance from OpenText but are not able to directly contact them because we purchased the license via SAP. However, I think that the technical support team should be very proactive.

We have been using LoadRunner Professional for a long time. We are looking into switching to LRE because it's centralized and has so many good features.

The installation is very problematic and not that straightforward. We have had so many problems.

We purchased the license via SAP.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise at six.

We are using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise for performance testing one of the client's ERP solutions.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise supports a lot of technologies. The existing performance testing that this tool is capable of is good. The protocols that are available are widely varied when compared to other performance testing tools. 

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise needs to add more features for Citrix performance-based applications testing. This was one of the challenges we observed. Additionally, we experienced some APIs challenges.

I have been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise for approximately four years.

The stability and performance of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise are very good. It is a very established tool and there are not any issues with the reliability.

The solution is highly scalable.

The support from Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise has been excellent.

We tried NeoLoad previously. We found that NeoLoad is a good competitor to Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise.

The price of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise could improve, it is expensive.

When comparing Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise with the competitors that are coming into the market, I would look for an open-source version of this tool, if possible. The cost is one thing that is preventing people from using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. 

Some of the upcoming protocols are coming into the market, some of these are not supported by Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. I can easily choose NeoLoad and complete what I need to with it. 

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is still evolving in the coming DevOps sector,  once the CICD architecture comes in, we will see more changes. I presume it is not up to date from a CICD support perspective.

I rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise a five out of ten.