OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Reviews

We had to move applications from a mainframe environment to a targeted new environment. We needed to conduct load and stress testing as part of the process. We also used it to keep track of the test cases in the repository. 

We initially used LoadRunner Enterprise on a project basis. However, it exceeded our expectations, and we bought a small number of licenses. 

Our main use case for the product was load and stress testing. It helped us put the system under stress by injecting in multiple users, such as 5,000 users. 

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise doesn't support some mainframe protocols. We had to build scripts to access the interface. 

I have been using LoadRunner Enterprise for two years. 

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is a mature product with high stability. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

We used only about 20 test cases. We didn't push beyond that. 

OpenText's support is good. 

Positive

We got an 80 percent discount for the product. It was cost-effective, but licenses tend to get expensive. 

The main challenge we resolved using the product is ensuring the functional equivalency of applications that migrated from old to new environments. 

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise has streamlined our testing process. It acted as a single source for the test cases and criteria. We could pull reports and show the management that the system is tested and can be taken live. 

The solution has helped us save time. 

Before OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, a customer did not have a repository of test cases. Hence, they needed to redevelop the previously used test cases. However, the solution helps to reuse test cases. 

I rate the product an eight 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 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.

We use this solution for performance and load test different types of web-based applications and APIs. We want to make sure that before any application or any upgrade to an existing application is made available to an actual user, it is sufficiently tested within the organization.

We want to ensure that if there is a high volume of users, they have a seamless experience. We don't want them to experience slowness or an interruption in service, as a result of an increase in the number of users on the web service or website. Essentially, we test to guarantee that all of our users have a good experience.

When it comes to delivering enterprise-level testing capabilities, this solution is really good.

Using this tool, we are able to test an application end-to-end from any area. Specifically, we are able to test our applications that are used across geographies. This includes worldwide locations starting from one end of Asia to the other end of the Americas. Geographically, we have full testing coverage for virtually all of our enterprise applications.

In terms of application coverage, there have been very few or no applications at the enterprise level that we have not been able to test using this tool. I think there is only one, but that was a unique case. Apart from that, at an enterprise level, in terms of coverage and geographically as well as technically, we have been able to test everything using this solution.

OpenText has a platform where I can share what is good and what further improvements I can make. There is also a community where we can leave feedback.

As an admin, I have the ability to copy all of the details from one project to another. However, I don't recall functionality for cross-project reporting. If there are two projects available then I cannot run a load test or report metrics from the other project.

LoadRunner Enterprise offers multiple features to perform a deep dive into a project. For example, we can see how many load tests of a particular application were run over a certain period of time. We can also see what scripts and tests were built over a time period. There is lots of information that it provides.

It is very important that we are able to drill down into an individual project because we sometimes have to look into what set of tests was executed for a particular project, as well as how frequently the tests were run. This helps us to determine whether the results were similar across different executions, or not. For us, this is an important aspect of the functionality that this tool provides.

One of the major benefits, which is something that we have gained a lot of experience with, is the internal analytics capability. It has multiple graphical and analytical representations that we can use, and it has helped us a lot of times in pinpointing issues that could have caused SEV1 or SEV2 defects in production.

We found that when we ran the load test, those issues were identified by using the analytic graphs that LoadRunner provides. Based on this knowledge, we have been able to make the required corrections to our applications. After retesting them, we were able to release them to production. This process is something that we find very useful.

In terms of time, I find it pretty reasonable for test management. There are not too many things that we have to do before starting a load test. Once one becomes good at scripting, it does not take long. Of course, the length of time to run depends on how big and how complex the script is. Some load tests have five scripts, whereas some have between 25 and 30 scripts. On average, for a test with 10 scripts, the upper limit to set it up and run is a couple of hours.

Overall, we don't spend too much time setting up our tests.

One of the most valuable features of this solution is recording and replaying, and the fact that there are multiple options available to do this. For example, a normal web application can be recorded and replayed again on many platforms. Moreover, it can be recorded in different ways.

An application can be recorded based on your user experience, or just the backend code experience, or whether you want to record using a different technology, like a Java-specific recording, or a Siebel-specific recording. All of these different options and recording modes are available.

The scheduling feature is very helpful because it shows me time slots in calendar format where I can view all of the tests that are currently scheduled. It also displays what infrastructure is available to me to schedule a load test if I need to.

Something that is missing is a platform where I can share practices with my team. I would like to be able to inform my team members of specific best practices, but at this point, I can only share scripts and stuff like that with them. Having a private community for my own team, where I can share information about best practices and skills, would be helpful.

OpenText needs to improve in terms of support. With the same support plan but when the product was owned by HP, support was more responsive and better coordinated.

The monitoring and related analytical capabilities for load tests should be brought up to industry standards. This product integrates well with tools like Dynatrace and AppDynamics but having the built-in functionality improved would be a nice thing to have.

I have been using OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise for approximately 15 years. It was previously known as Performance Center and before that, it was simply LoadRunner. In terms of continuous, uninterrupted usage, it has been for approximately nine years.

I am a long-time user of OpenText products and have worked on them across multiple organizations.

Our tool is hosted on-premises and we have not faced stability issues as such. One of the problems that we sometimes experience is that suddenly, multiple machines become unresponsive and cannot be contacted. We call these the load generators in LoadRunner nomenclature. When this happens, we have to restart the central server machine and then, everything goes back to normal. That sort of issue happens approximately once in six months.

Apart from that, we have not observed any stability issues. There are some defects within the tool which from time to time, we have raised with OpenText. If they have a fix available, they do provide it. Importantly, it does not make the product unusable until that is fixed.

This product is easy to scale and as a user, we have not encountered any such issues. Over time, if I have to add more machines to monitor, or if I have to add more machines to use during a load test, it's pretty straightforward.

If I compare it with other tools, I would say that it does not scale as well. However, as a user, it is okay and I've never faced any issues with adding more machines.

Whenever we have any support required from OpenText, the process begins with us submitting a ticket and they normally try to solve it by email. But if required, they are okay with having a video conference or an audio conference. They use Cisco technology for conferencing and they are responsive to collaboration.

Unfortunately, technical support is not as good as it used to be. From an end-user perspective, coming from both me and several of my team members, we have found that over the last year and a half, the quality of support has gone down a couple of notches. It has been since the transition from HP to OpenText, where the support is simply no longer at the same level.

The level of support changes based on the plan that you have but our plan has not changed, whereas the responsiveness and coordination have. Generally speaking, interacting with HP was better than it is with OpenText, which is something that should be improved.

I have not used other similar tools.

I have not set up other tools, so I don't have a basis for comparison. That said, I find that setting up LoadRunner Enterprise is not very straightforward.

Whether it's an initial setup or an upgrade to our existing setup, it's very time-consuming. There are lots of things that we have to look into and understand throughout the process. It takes a lot of time and resources and that is one of the reasons we are considering moving to the cloud version. Ideally, our effort in upgrading to the newer versions is reduced by making the transition. The last couple of upgrades have been very consuming in terms of time and effort, which could have been spent on more productive work.

To be clear, I was not involved in setting it up initially. Each time we deploy this product, we set it up as a new one but use our older version as a base. Prior to the configuration, we have to update it. However, it is older and it does not upgrade, so we have to install it as a new version. I do not see a significant difference in time between installing afresh and upgrading an existing installation.

If I am able to identify the needs and what is required, from that point, it takes almost the same amount of time whether it is a clean install or an upgrade. The biggest challenge with LoadRunner Enterprise is to identify the database that we're using and then upgrade it. As soon as the database is upgraded successfully, 70% to 75% of the work is complete. It is the biggest component, takes the longest, and is the most effort-consuming as well.

I am involved in the installation and maintenance, including upgrades.

I have not been directly involved in price negotiations but my understanding is that while the cost is a little bit high, it provides good value for the money.

I did not evaluate other tools before implementing this one.

At this time, we do not make use of LoadRunner Developer Integration. We are thinking of migrating to the latest version of LoadRunner, which probably has the LoadRunner Developer functionality. Once we upgrade to the new version, we plan to use it.

We are not currently using any of the cloud functionality offered by OpenText. In our organization, we do have multiple applications that are hosted on the cloud, and we do test them using LoadRunner Enterprise, but we do not use any component of LoadRunner Enterprise that is hosted on the cloud.

I am an active member in several online communities, including LinkedIn, that are specific to performance testing. As such, I have seen different experts using different tools, and the overall impression that I get from LoadRunning Enterprise is that it offers good value for the price. The level of coverage in terms of scripting and analysis had helped to solidify their position as a market leader, at least a decade ago.

Nowadays, while others have closed the gap, it is still far ahead of other tools in the space. My advice is that if LoadRunner Enterprise can be made to fit within the budget, it is the best tool for performance testing and load testing.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Performance testing is an integral part of the testing life cycle. It determines whether the application being rolled out for end-users is in line with our expectations. It contributes quite well.

Initially, we had a completely on-premises implementation of LoadRunner. In 2018, we moved to cloud. The load generators are still internal, but the rest of the components sit in the Micro Focus cloud environment as a SaaS enterprise solution.

It's quite versatile. As a company, we have applications that span across different platforms and technologies, including legacy. We've been using it for applications on mainframes and with the latest technologies as well. We are able to attain our requirements from a performance testing standpoint. It helps us to be confident and to be aware of where issues are before we release a product to a wider audience.

When you have that scalability, it helps in performing end-to-end testing seamlessly. Our organization has applications that span multiple applications and technologies, to complete a single business process. That type of scalability helps us to achieve our performance testing objectives.

It has definitely helped us to identify the performance bottlenecks. Whenever we get into the procurement of other applications, we consider the historical performance KPIs. That really helps us to define those optimum KPIs with respect to other vendors.

In terms of efficiency, certain features have been introduced that were quite complementary and have really helped us with our delivery.

We have a centralized delivery team and we are able to meet enterprise requirements, which include different types of protocols that are involved, including scripting. The technology supports that and enables us to have a wider range of testing. Enterprise-level testing is something that we are satisfied with.

LoadRunner helps to facilitate sharing of best practices and skills. That's the way we expect any enterprise tool to work. It helps us to follow best practices and share them with other teams as well. It's quite important to have that consistency in terms of the quality of deliverables. It plays a key role. It enables us to have that benchmarking in terms of quality and is one of the crucial requirements for us.

The cross-project reporting and business views are among the valuable features because a huge platform can have multiple projects that are being executed in parallel. In that scenario, the reporting provides a holistic view for the stakeholders.

It would be good if we could look forward at the future technology needs we have. I would like to see Micro Focus provide more customer awareness around how LoadRunner can fulfill requirements with Big Data use cases, for example, where you do performance testing at the scale of data lakes. That also applies to when we need to deal with applications that are adopting the latest technologies, where our company doesn't have a footprint. It would help us to have a better view and be prepared to address those requirements efficiently.

The Micro Focus team has done a good job of introducing us to product owners and product managers, and in talking about the upcoming roadmap and features of the tool. That's been quite good. But when it comes to technologies our company has yet to adopt, I would like to see an indication from Micro Focus of how one does performance testing and what kinds of challenges can we foresee. Those kinds of studies would really help us.

We've been using LoadRunner since 2012.

The current licensing model is something that offers us flexibility, compared to what we had earlier. That's something which is really beneficial.

Any plans to increase our usage of LoadRunner depend on the business demand. Our company depends on a number of IT applications for which implementation is planned and are in scope for performance testing. We will carve out a plan for introducing performance testing of them.

Penetration and performance testing have increased over time and we are growing well. For applications that are already in the maintenance phase, depending on the volume of change that is introduced into them and how critical they are, we introduce performance testing. However, the number of custom applications is quite limited within our company.

So far, Micro Focus technical support has been smooth.

The solution supports multiple protocols such as open source, VuGen, TruWeb, TruClient, and SAP. A few years ago, we also wanted support for IoT. That did not exist. That's something we requested and the product team added it to the roadmap.

Since the early days, we were with HP Performance Center, and then with Micro Focus LoadRunner. We have stuck with the same supplier and product.

We have become very accustomed to the product, using it as long as we have. We have never come across any kind of difficulty and we have received support from the vendor whenever we have required help.

Our migration to LoadRunner Cloud happened in 2018, and took approximately six months. Our company was being cautious because we wanted to ensure business continuity, so we went for a phased project migration approach.

We went with that approach because there were multiple aspects that needed to be taken care of, from a security standpoint. We had to get required clearances because we needed to open certain ports and firewalls. That took some time. Once that was cleared, we did a proof of concept and quickly started moving projects in a phased manner, and we haven't seen many difficulties since then.

The contract that we had with Micro Focus was a bit complex, but now it's much simpler. As a customer, I have clarity about it. That is something that helps us to serve the business better.

It's a tool that really helps you when you have a very varied landscape and you have technologies and platforms and infrastructure which include legacy and new ones, with a mix of SaaS. LoadRunner has the ability to support different protocols and that serves the purpose. It's a one-stop solution.

We wanted to integrate LoadRunner reports to a time-series database, an open-source tool like Grafana. We learned a lot from that integration. The integration of the solution into a CI pipeline is something that we haven't explored widely, but it's an area we are looking forward to investing in soon. We are exploring more in terms of the integration capabilities of LoadRunner with other tools.

Performance testing is a specialized skill and we don't have too many using the solution, but we do have a couple of professionals who have been doing performance testing for more than 15 years. The rest have been into performance testing for the last seven to eight years, with exposure to different protocols and technologies. We are aiming to scale up and cross-train them in multiple protocols so that we can reach some of our goals without any hindrance this year. We would like to have less dependency, in terms of expertise, on specific technologies and protocols.

I am a managed service provider, a reseller, and a consultant. In other words, I am a total geek. 

I added a whole bunch of features and changes three or four years, but I don't know if they followed my recommendations; however, they did implement some changes that I suggested.

There's an onsite version and there's a cloud version. We typically don't want an enterprise type version because the clients that we work with are fairly large. The last place we used this solution employed 150,000 people.

We have clients that have as few as 10 employees, and other clients that have thousands of employees. I would say the mid-sized businesses that we work with are between 250 and 700 people.

It's all Citrix. We do load balance. We do load testing for Citrix deployments to determine whether or not we're going to get what we expected.

The ability to run long packages for extended periods of time, and actually mimic end users. That's really what we use it for.

We use it for validation. When you put together a system that has two to three thousand people on it, you need to be able to test it. To do that, you need a product that allows you to cast two to three thousand users on a system.

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly.

The reporting has room for improvement.

I have been using this solution, on and off, for roughly six to seven years. 

In the last 12 months, I don't think I've actually loaded it up, but I have had my PS team load it up several times.

It's a stable solution. I'd give OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise a 4.5 out of 5 on stability.

We never experienced any bugs or glitches; those are typically in the actual loads that you're running, but that's not their fault, that's your fault.

Scalability-wise, I have not had any problems. It's gone as high as I needed it to go. There are issues when supporting two to three thousand users. I don't ever go any higher than that.

A typical test is between roughly 150 and 250 users, and the most I've ever gotten is 3000. The scalability has been there for what I needed it to do. I really can't speak outside of that realm.

I have never called their technical support, but their online documentation is pretty good.

We deployed three different solutions. One of them was free from VMware and the other one was Login PSI. We didn't really switch, it's just different feature sets we're looking for or methodology we want to use; whether or not the client wants to spend a hundred grand upfront.

For me, the initial setup is straightforward — I've done it a few times now.

The price is okay. You're able to buy it, as opposed to paying for a full year. You can just on-demand purchase it for your users for a day or two, which is nice in an MSP business like mine. If I need to use it for separate clients, I don't have to have a huge layout of capital upfront.

Make sure you know what your use case is before you buy it.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine. It's very good at doing what it needs to do. I think that the reporting needs a little bit of work, but that's pretty much it. I think every reporting system needs a little bit of work, so take that with a grain of salt.