OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

Multiple protocols are available in LoadRunner, so we can choose one based on our requirements. If it is a single protocol, we have to start recording the scripting and checking whether you can record through LoadRunner. Once the recording is done, we have to do scripting and execution. We have three people working on various applications for the same client. We are working simultaneously and sharing our work to finish our content.

I like LoadRunner's ability to use multiple protocols. That's one of the greatest features along with the ability to test service calls between the app and server. 

Sometimes, we aren't able to see an accurate page view while replying and executing the script. When you are navigating the application side by side, it needs to be displayed on a random viewer. Sometimes we will get a few applications, and we won't get others.

I have been using LoadRunner for my entire career, so it's been almost four years. 

LoadRunner is standalone. It doesn't rely on anything. There are three components. We are using a controller and analysis instead of a controller. We design a script and run it in the controller. In analysis, we do the reporting and analysis, but instead of a controller, we have the option called performance center, where we can run the script like the controller. However, the controller is a standard Windows-based application. If you choose the performance center, any number of people can access it at the same time.

I have used JMeter and NeoLoad. I switched to LoadRunner because the client preferred it. If they have a budget and need to see clear views, we will opt for LoadRunner. However, if they lack funds, they can use an open-source tool like JMeter. I also have more experience with LoadRunner, so I would prefer to use that. We can write any number of lines of code manually to make the script work.

LoadRunner is a little more expensive than NeoLoad, but LoadRunner's interface is more user-friendly. 

Whenever a client wants to improve their application, they will procure the licenses. It's simple to install. it will take hardly 20 to 30 minutes of time to install and we will get 50 user licenses free of cost.

It only takes 30 minutes to deploy on our application. It's on a private cloud that we use whenever we're working on a particular project. One person is enough to install it.

LoadRunner is a little more expensive than other solutions, but there are no hidden costs. 

I rate LoadRunner nine out of 10. You can get 50 users for free before you decide to procure the license, but run the script for multiple users.

We use OpenText LoadRunner Professional primarily for performance testing. We are able to test applications with various user loads and scenarios.

The use of the virtual table server feature allowed us to invoke calls to the database and pull data during execution, providing valuable insights during our testing phases. However, this feature was revoked in 2015, and its absence has been noticed.

One of the most valuable features of LoadRunner Professional is the wide range of protocols it supports, especially the web user v user types. These features help it maintain a significant market share.

Technical support needs to be faster, and the pricing should be more competitive. The virtual table server feature should be reintroduced. Some AI capabilities should be added. There should be an 'analyze the application' feature to recommend which protocol to use for recording.

I have been working with LoadRunner Professional for 18 years.

The product is stable when it comes to handling multi-user scenarios and performance testing.

There are no issues regarding scalability; the product handles multi-user scenarios well.

Recently, the technical support has been very bad. There is no appropriate response, and if I send a query, I get a response after one month. No one is there to respond to our queries quickly.

Neutral

I do not see a return on investment (ROI) with LoadRunner Professional, although with placement, I do see some ROI.

The pricing should be reduced and made more competitive.

If the use case is strictly web applications, I would recommend BlazeMeter over LoadRunner Professional. For SAP-based applications and newer tech stacks that JMeter or BlazeMeter cannot support, LoadRunner Professional would be recommended.

If companies have complete web applications, I would not recommend LoadRunner Professional. For SAP-based applications and specific scenarios where other tools might fall short, LoadRunner Professional is advisable. Improvements are needed in technical support, pricing, and adding AI features.

I'd rate the solution six out of ten.

Our primary use case was for performance testing and platform application problems. We used it mainly in the banking sector and for API testing. It's multi-purpose. I recently moved to a different company.

This is a very comprehensive tool. It helped us with performance testing and allowed us to capture the actual performance engineering as well. 

If they were to add some kind of specific level monitoring, I think that would be very useful. When it comes to the main load of operation, it stimulates the load by using the underlying mechanism, either the API or some other protocol. If they were able to capture the UI aspect as well, that would be very, very helpful. This is an expensive solution and perhaps they could change their modeling to improve that.

I used this solution for over 12 years. 

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is scalable. The whole objective of LoadRunner is scalability. In the organization, we had somewhere around 20 users supporting multiple customers. 

The technical support is very good. 

Positive

I also have experience with JMeter. In comparison, if it's a wave application or to some degree API testing, then JMeter works well and it's a free tool so we can tweak it to our needs. We can use BlazeMeter for the same purpose. They are cheaper options than LoadRunner. But when it comes to different types of protocols, unique protocols, those are typically supported by LoadRunner. It's a very comprehensive tool and that's why it's costly.

The initial setup is not that straightforward. It requires specialists to train LoadRunner users. We used integrators to assist with implementation. The solution doesn't really require any maintenance. 

Micro Focus offers several options for licensing, it really depends on the number of users you have and your use case. 

It's important to have proper parameterization and correlation as part of the scripting. The workflow or modeling has to be done appropriately according to the load that will be required and that needs to be done prior to implementation. Know what your steps will be, how you plan to increase the load and replicate real-world scenarios.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

LoadRunner is one of the most versatile performance testing tools. One thing I really like about LoadRunner is its breadth of coverage. The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing. I could not think about any other tool other than LoadRunner. I've also seen LoadRunner evolve over a period of time, in the sense that it addresses new technologies. I would say it's still a very strong product and there's a lot of new products out there.

Think about the performance testing as a part of the whole of your testing lifecycle. It's our go-to product and that's the only product which we use within the organization right now. Not every project goes through performance testing, but any project that has performance testing is a component of the test lifecycle. It has our de facto standard.

When you think about deploying these applications to production, and our organization being a global company, we have a user footprint across the globe. LoadRunner, along with HPE Envy Network Virtualization: It's a combination where we, not only run business processes in volumes, but also similar to these network conditions, helps us identify some performance issues well in advance. It's one of those risk verifications that we do.

One thing I was desiring a few years ago, before StormRunner came in, I was hoping HPE would come out with some of the new tools that are cloud-based, SAS-based performance testing solutions. With StormRunner coming out, it has probably filled that gap.

You should be able to use LoadRunner as a single platform. You should be able to have browser based access. You should be able to run enterprise tests. HPE addressed a little bit of this by taking over the license for the controller and tying it to the load generators. But in an ideal world, just make it a single platform, everything should be like Performance Center.

I've been using LoadRunner as a performance engineer since 2002. That makes it about 15 years now.

It's such a mature product. It's been out there for a very long time. It has come a long way. It's extremely stable in the sense that I can approach the technical support, as an example. It is because we ran into some challenges with program scripting or something, but generally not because of the application crashing. I'd list my experience with LoadRunner as it being a very stable product.

In my previous experience with previous employers working with some retailers, we had to run some extremely large tests, and even at my current company, we go up to about 3000 content users. I think it's fairly scalable. We run very small tests, obviously, with StormRunner. It's can probably scale to much higher levels, but within our boundaries of demands, it's scaled very well.

We use tech support, but not quite often, just when we really run into some problems. We have a really strong internal team, which so a majority of the issues are internally solved. We are either experimenting or knowledge base in everything. We do reach out to tech support, but it's very rarely done (rare cases).

Service depends upon the issue we face. Sometimes we go off on a tangent. It's an exception, but we go down the wrong path. Then, it's a long winding road to the actual resolution. In many cases, if it's a common issue and it's fairly quick, we get pretty good support. I've actually seen both.

In 2002, was the first time I was actually really involved in bringing the tool in. Ever since, I go to new employers, the tool was already there. I help take it to the next level, mature the practice of what not, but again there's only one instance where I really had to bring the tool in, but everywhere else, we already had a tool in place.

Back then, there was no competition. It was the only choice there. After that, whenever I moved companies, the tool was already there. I was involved in the sense of bringing new protocols, new additional licenses, and so on.

I was involved in the initial setup. It's extremely straightforward. I've probably worked on about six or seven different versions, and it's extremely straightforward and fairly simple to setup.

I would still consider LoadRunner as an expensive tool and you get a LoadRunner and the Performance Center.

Once there was situation before StormRunner was out, where we did venture into a tool call. Here I was working for a retailer. We ventured in tool call with SOASTA. We were looking for a cloud-based performance testing solution, and at that time, HPE was not there. Every time I wanted to make a decision, LoadRunner was our default choice and we had nothing else running in contention.

LoadRunner is still my first choice. There's still no competition to LoadRunner. In the sense, there are tools out there. I know without a doubt, very good tools. But again, LoadRunner to me is more versatile and has more breadth of coverage.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

• We look at the product itself. In the sense, the stability of the product, etc.
• In terms of the vendor, we look at the thought leadership and the roadmap. That's something we always look into. Just to see, is the vendor a good investment. For example, are they going to stick around for a long time?
• We want them to innovate. In the sense, if you think about how quickly the technologies are changing. We want the vendor that we are looking into to focus on innovation.

We use the solution for client service applications, mostly web-based applications. There are a lot of service conversions needed in terms of Apple to Apple talking or using with a protocol. If you need what they're offering then I think LoadRunner is a good tool. And it's from HP. Primary use cases are creating code-based operations for the latest updates, and API calls if we are in corporate. I'm a QA leader and we are customers of Micro Focus LoadRunner. 

I think correlation is one of the important features. Correlation, parameterization, those kind of features make things easier.

It's a very expensive tool so I think licensing costs could be reduced. I think their monitoring services in real time could be improved and made more user friendly. 

I've been using this solution for nearly 15 years. 

This is a stable product - I've dealt with it over the past 15 years and it's stable.

It's a scalable product in terms of it's running or technology wise. 

Their tech support is pretty good. They try to document things and they are organized. I would say I've had good experience with them. 

This is a heavy-duty tool, so it's not a one-click installation. But I think it's comparatively easier with the documentation they provide.

I would suggest that if you have a site that needs to be used by a lot of people or if it's for enterprise applications where consumption is high, then it's a good tool. Otherwise, if there are fewer users or not a lot of load, then I would say that other tools might be handy. If you require performance-oriented applications, then it's a good tool. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We've been using Micro Focus LoadRunner for load testing to simulate the load and applications for microservices and Salesforce UI applications.

 We like LoadRunner's controller and analysis features.

Improvement wise, the pipeline should be enabled. It should be embedded as part of the tool itself rather than going with third-party tools.

Monitoring should be more effective as well.

I've been using this solution for the last 17 years.

I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional's stability at eight out of ten.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate the scalability at seven.

I would technical support at eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is not straightforward. It should be enabled with some APM tools so that we don't have to rely on third-party tools.

Our ROI is okay, considering that it is a one-time effort.

When you compare the cost of other tools such as NeoLoad and LoadNinja, the cost of LoadRunner is on the expensive side. As a result, we are currently considering going with NeoLoad.

We are evaluating Tricentis NeoLoad and will probably go with it because it has additional features and is less expensive.

Overall, I would rate LoadRunner at seven out of ten.

LoadRunner handles the testing of complex multi-user scenarios. It was not complex. It's pretty easy. 

The reports have been effective in identifying system bottlenecks. It offers very good reports.

Sometimes when we were migrating from one version to another, some of our scripts started failing. And configuration-wise, we used to get support since we had the license with us. We used to just connect with Micro Focus, and the turnaround time was very less. It was very fast.

With my understanding and experience, for future releases, I suggest some correlation features that had to be tuned from the tool because, for SAP applications, capturing dynamic values from the responses and other technical things still had to be done manually.

In my previous job, I worked with OpenText LoadRunner Professional.

I used it for almost 14 years. 

Around 14 people used it. 

There were some technical challenges, but the support was pretty good.

They could work on some more things because there are some more complex applications, like SAP applications, wherein some of the challenges were capturing dynamic values and other things that had to be done manually.

Positive

I already put forth the proposal for LoadRunner Professional in my current company. 

The implementation was very straightforward and not an issue. To get comfortable with LoadRunner, it was just three to four months for me. 

Within four to five months, I was totally comfortable with it and started doing all the activities.

The license was a bit expensive. That was the reason we used to depend on the customer to fund it.  

I would recommend it to other users. I recommend LoadRunner for every company where performance testing is considered a key value.

Because I have some experiences wherein some companies will not consider performance itself as their key thing. So wherever performance is being concentrated, I'll propose LoadRunner as the first thing.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

We use the solution for load testing. 

The executive management is more confident when they go for production. They know that the performance issues are already addressed. 

The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation. 

The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays. 

I have been using the product for three to four years. 

The solution is stable. 

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise's pricing is reasonable. 

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise has helped us save time by five to ten percent. The tool has helped us improve product quality. 

We use the TruClient feature, and it has helped us reduce scripting. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten.