OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Reviews

It helps us to test the performance of our applications at load, and what sets it apart is the number of types of applications that it covers from web to back office, and even mobile. Makes multiple protocols available to us.

It gives us advanced reporting. Allows us to compare performance as we make application changes, and scale to the level that we need as a large organization.

I'd like to see feedback from production, to see what scenarios to run, and even better integrations into some other products such as AppDynamics.

I've been using LoadRunner for some 15 to 18 years personally, but at the company I'm at, for about six months.

Yes, I would say it is stable. We haven't had a problem with stability.

I believe it will meet our needs into the future. We heard today that you can scale up to 2,000,000 users even with the sister product, which is StormRunner. We haven't had any issues with scalability.

We use a third-party for tech support and they do a great job.

Straightforward. Very easy to do.

I think it's the best product out there for performance and load testing.

Performance Center allows multiple users to access and work on a project simultaneously. 

Additionally, it keeps a run log and allows for script and scenario versioning. 

I also like the scheduling feature that allows us to manage multiple projects using the same controller and load generators.

I am a performance tester, and I need a product that can maintain my scripts, scenarios, monitors and run logs. Performance Center is my product of choice.

Just recently, I used the command line feature to create scripts that can be used across multiple environments. That feature saved me a great deal of time --thousands in man hours over the last year.

The trending reports do not always work as I would expect them to. I have had issues with transaction times being pulled in correctly. 

Additionally, trending a test run can take over 30 minutes when it should take five.

I've used it for five years.

Performance Center requires regular maintenance in order to remain stabl

No

The company I work for provides Performance Center support.  Orasi has won several awards for their HP support.  I use Orasi support when ever I require customer service for an HP product.  I have never had an opportunity to use HP customer service.

I have had the opportunity to use two other products briefly. Unfortunately, I did not have enough experience to speak to this with any authority.

I was not involved in the deployment of any of the instances of Performance Center that I have used. However, I have been involved in three different upgrades for three different clients. 

When Performance Center is managed properly with proper maintenance, there were no issues with upgrades. I have seen instances of script corruption, user access difficulties and project corruption. 

It is necessary to have an experienced Performance Center administrator providing regular maintenance.

Orasi Software does Performance Center implementation. I am not a member of that team. I have been on projects where Performance Center was implemented by the client and then Orasi was called to correct any issues. 

Again, I cannot stress enough how important it is to have an experienced administrator. It may cost more initially but it will save time and money later.

The return on investment is immeasurable. One of my first clients was an entertainment company that called us after their production site had gone down for a day. The reservation system was down for over six hours. They estimated they had lost in excess of three million dollars an hour. 

Regular performance testing prevents such occurrences. Needless to say they have not been down since.

The price tag on Performance Center is a large one. It can be daunting. There are so many options now with Cloud Controllers, using Cloud Load Generators, purchasing VUser licenses by the day or even hour. Additionally, Performance Center in the cloud relieves you of the essential maintenance and administration requirements.

I was trained on HP LoadRunner and then Performance Center.  I was not involved in any evaluation process.

Performance Center is not difficult to pick up for a beginner. When I was first introduced to Performance Center, I had just started my career as a performance test engineer. It is not completely intuitive though. I believe there are some extraneous requirements. As I mentioned before an experience administrator is recommended.

The command line feature allows you to set a parameter value at the scenario level. It can be applied to all scripts in a scenario. This feature has saved me a great deal of time.

We use the solution for performance testing, including load testing and stress and endurance testing. We have worked with Citrix, Web-HTTP/HTML, Truclient Protocols and Mobile Applications as well. It has a good user interface and is user-friendly.

It helped us to achieve our goals within the stipulated time and is a good solution for load testing. The integration was smooth, and all the help can be found in the Micro Focus help blog. The examples were helpful for new protocols and functions. 

The load testing, site scope monitoring, analysis, and graphs during execution are all useful features. It offers easy integration with third-party tools like Dynatrace, Splunk, etc. It also offers a customizable template for results. 

We'd like the product to include protocol identifiers whenever a tester wants to test a new application. They need to at least capture traffic and analyze and send a recommended protocol. 

They should give insights (passed/failed) with throughput achievable of the load test based on the throughput and errors in our previous tests without using the trend option for load tests. 

I have been working on the LoadRunner Enterprise more than four years.

Technical support is always available and ready to help.

Positive

The vendor is an expert and helps with all the setup and installation tasks.

We use LoadRunner for performance testing.

This is a product that has a lot of capabilities and is the most mature tool of its kind in the market.

In the DevOps model, performance testing has become a bottleneck. This is because, after the completion of a sprint, people are in a hurry to send it to production but it first needs performance testing. Whenever there is a code change, it takes a lot of time to rescript and debug the script.

The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved. Basically, it is too resource-intensive.

Performance testing needs to be better integrated into an agile framework.

There should be a way of automatically increasing the load generators on the cloud, without specifically having to spin up the agent and configure it. There is a third-party tool that does this. 

I have been using LoadRunner Enterprise for nine years.

Although it is stable, the whole performance testing process becomes very slow because of its complex scripting and having to rework the scripts. Ultimately, this will become obsolete if it is not improved.

LoadRunner is a scalable product. We have a team of four or five people who use it.

The technical support is very bad. It seems that people will ask a lot of unnecessary questions just to bide the time. We are very frustrated with the support team.

This is the only tool that I have used for performance testing. It is the tool that I use most of the time in my role.

The initial setup is fine. Deploying LoadRunner is quick but to set up the performance testing itself takes a lot of time.

When it comes to organization, people compare automation testing with performance testing. Automation testing is something that is very easily integrated within an agile and faster delivery framework. The scripting in automation testing is robust because it is GUI-based. When it comes to performance testing, it is request-response-based and the scripts are not very robust in some of the application platforms. Because of that, people feel that performance testing is a bottleneck and it takes a lot of time.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

It supports an extensive portfolio of protocols. It supports everything from the very basic web HTTP, which is kind of the bread and butter of load performance testing tools, to Citrix, Oracle, and even some Real X, and others. The breadth of the product is very valuable.

It is a very powerful tool. They pitch it as the market leader and it kind of is. It's that big “one-tool-fits-all” kind of option. You don't need to go and get several tools, each of which supports an individual kind of protocol. You can do pretty much everything on the entire stack with one tool. That makes it good.

It centralized our ability to offer a performance engineering service. We’ve been up as a one-stop shop for projects and programs to come in. We know what tools we’re going to use. Rather than custom fitting something for each project, we can say, “This is what we're going to recommend."

I'd like to see a more shared data repository. They have their costs up. I think they could expand it out a bit more so we could have it running across synthetic users and protocol types.

The stability is very good. A couple years ago, you might have been able to point a finger at HPE and say maybe they weren't doing enough with the product; so it was probably unstable. As it is, over the last couple of years, they've innovated a bit more. There's been a bit more change without losing the core stability.

The scalability is good. We got Performance Center, which is kind of the enterprise version of LoadRunner. That solved a number of pinch points for us by enabling us to run multiple performance engineering programs at once; so that is really good.

Technical support is really good. I’ve had stuff bounced around the world to have problems solved.

We were previously using LoadRunner and we moved to Performance Center. Under the covers, they are very much the same, but Performance Center just has a lot more flexibility from a licensing perspective and from a setup and management perspective. It was kind of a natural evolution.

The initial setup was really reasonably straightforward. We pretty much just followed the installation guide.

We also considered Microsoft. We chose HPE because of its breadth of capability.

When we selected a vendor, it was a trade-off between having the best in class and the price. It needs to be cheap and we need to get along with them.

Whether I would advise colleagues to choose this solution is entirely situationally dependent. It fits our needs and our project portfolio, but that doesn't mean that it will meet everyone else's needs.

The UI itself is very user friendly. So even though I support six different applications, I don’t have to go back and re-teach myself.

We've eliminated a lot of production issues because we are able to test so many virtual users at once. It's pretty amazing to run a test environment and have virtual five thousand users. We also need to 24/7 support for our thousands of customers. This solution gets all the bugs out of other applications so when they do go to run, they're ready.

Very stable. Our only issue is that we consistently need more load generators.

It has supported our enormous, continuous growth very quickly compared to other tools we’ve used. We also used IBM Rational Team Concert, which could not support the growth in the same way.

Not as fast as I would like, but they work with our customers in addition to working with us which is great because we don’t always have to be involved.

Technical support is the most important element for us when choosing a vendor.

I would say this is a very good tool as it allows small and huge applications to test with limitless size.

• It helps you to build custom design application simulation models that enable the performance test engineer to assess an enterprise, multi-tier, heavily-distributed, high-traffic application on how the application for that particular release meets its non-functional test requirements and SLA thresholds, which are key business-transaction response times.
• It tell you your applications' CPU computational power usages under various conditions such as stress, volume, and scalability.
• Its distributed nature will let you choose load generators that can be geographically located anywhere, thus traffic simulations from multiple locations make it possible to create a real production scenario.
• The true advantage of Performance Center is the ability to enable multiple engineers to do design and validate their script locally, but to execute them globally by using global resources spread across an organization.
• The other advantage is the integration with HP SiteScope which lets you to perform deep-dive monitoring of your application under test during your test execution for live health analysis using several readily available monitoring templates.

Some of the key-business and mission-critical applications released earlier into production were having issues in terms of key business transactions running slowly, which were impacting the end-user experience. The slow business transactions were causing grief to several customers, which eventually led to customers being moved onto different competitor products, causing revenue loss. There was increased downtime of applications in production due to poor application performance.

With the help of HP Performance Center and LoadRunner, we were able to critically evaluate the applications performance and stability, and were assured that each application that was released into production was performing better and meeting all SLAs, including transactional response times and system and platform resource utilization.

We have received excellent feedback in one specific instance where a customer came directly to me, and said that they are seeing much better transactional response times, which helped them serve customers faster, and now they are seeing their customers coming back.

Integration with other APM tools like DynaTrace or AppDynamics is a little tedious. Plus, support around cloud solutions and architectures needed to be improved.

I have used several versions of this product for over five years, alongside HP LoadRunner.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

It's excellent.

It's excellent.

As a person who has been in the performance engineering field for several years, I have used several similar products. However, Performance Center and LoadRunner offer unbeatable support across different protocols, including SAP and AJAX true client.

Also, its ease of use in designing and reusable custom automated performance frameworks is unbeatable. Its support in designing frameworks and scripts for load testing message queues, web, and web-service protocols are quite remarkable.

It offers different types of users for people who come from different programming backgrounds i.e. if you are predominantly a C programmer, you can write a lot of custom API’s using C, and similarly, if you come from Java programming you can use your Java skills in custom API implementation.

It was straightforward.

In-house.

It can lead to the generation of a very high ROI if you have the right people with the right expertise of the tool set.

It is a bit highly priced. However, better products with a better quality can come with a good price.

It is definitely one of the best products available on the market. Definitely programming knowledge around C programming would be greatly advantageous.

The ability to monitor and restart load testing components remotely, and the scheduling feature.

Prior to upgrading to Performance Center, my organization used a shared spreadsheet to schedule or reserve resources such as load generators or controllers. The built-in feature of Performance Center that does this, has made allocation of resources much, much easier.

Browser compatibility. IE is no longer the only browser out there, so providing users the choice of what browser to use would be great!

I've used it for approximately one year.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

7/10 HP support is getting better. Response times from support engineers are pretty good when using the online ticket system. The Knowledge Base still needs work: searches return far too many results, and their support site’s filtering or employment of key words or phrases seems ineffectual.

We previously used HP LoadRunner. Choosing Performance Center was an obvious upgrade for us. We also use other HP products such as UFT and Quality Center, so maintaining the cohesive environment made sense.

It was fairly straightforward, but determining how many servers were needed to host the application took some time to suss out. Performance Center is a resource-intensive app with many “moving parts” or components to consider.

We did it in-house with the help of a consultant.