OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

I use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional primarily for performance testing.

It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it.

They are immediately upgrading and providing the patch in this manner. It's good.

The drawback is that it is very expensive.

It is already a well-known tool with a vast number of features. The only issue is what they are actually making up for the asking rate.  A lot of people are unable to pay that much money in the industry.

I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support.

The price is too expensive.

I've been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for the last ten years and LoadRunner exclusively for the last twenty.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is 100 percent stable.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is 100 percent scalable.

We have 500 users in our organization.

I may use it 12 to 15 times per year.

I would rate the technical support a one out of five.

The technical support is very bad.

They are not providing any technical support, even though we have a support license. They have only hired people with zero knowledge.

They are completely unresponsive.

If I run into any problems or have any issues, I will resolve them only by myself. I will not rely on any technical support. If I raise a support ticket, they will actually require my setting for more than a month or two to solve a very simple problem.

Negative

I am new to this company. I only use the company website and the CS portal. Other than that, I do not use any of the other products.

I work in performance testing and I am currently using RadView or WebLOAD, as well as a Micro Focus LoadRunner and Silk Performer. At the same time, I used a couple of IBM products, including SLAMD and the rational performance tester. Aside from that, I use a variety of other products such as JMeter and others.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I would rate the initial setup a five out of five.

Pricing depends on our choices because it depends on what type of protocol we are getting, what type of licensing we are getting, and what kind of relationships we have with HP and Micro Focus. We can't say how much it will be based on that.

I cannot say because we are technical managers and I am not involved in any costing or pricing issues. I am not involved with any pricing.

I would rate the pricing a one out of five. It is expensive.

I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional a ten out of ten.

Without a doubt, it is an excellent product.

We use OpenText LoadRunner Professional in demand every time there is a requirement for notice, and that's when we use it.

The ability to have a load testing tool and conduct your load testing maybe before some major implementations leads to some cost saving in the long run because it avoids a lot of related issues.

OpenText LoadRunner Professional covers a number of protocols. It uses high-level languages like Java, CVC, and CCL. The main feature that is quite impressive is its ability to install however you want and just use that or whenever you want the availability of load generators.

The pricing could be lower. Moreover, there could be improvements in the auto-generated support reports, such as making it easier to work on the Word format reports if you want to add your customizations.

I have been working with OpenText LoadRunner Professional for more than ten years.

The stability of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is excellent. I would rate it a nine out of ten as it is a rock-solid solution with no issues.

OpenText LoadRunner Professional is very scalable. I would rate its scalability an eight out of ten because it allows for flexible installation and use of load generators.

OpenText technical support is very helpful, depending on the structure of how you get your support, whether directly from OpenText or via other suppliers. So far, the support has been good, and we have built some nice relationships with the support team. I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

Positive

Before OpenText LoadRunner Professional, I did some comparisons between LoadRunner, JMeter, and Free Performer. In terms of ease of use, support, and overall functionality, LoadRunner became the better solution.

The initial setup of OpenText LoadRunner Professional was quite easy and not difficult at all. It took us at most one hour to deploy it.

I am the one who does the installation and any troubleshooting or maintenance related to OpenText LoadRunner Professional. When I have issues, I log a call with the OpenText support team.

The long-term use of LoadRunner Professional has led to some cost savings by avoiding a lot of load-related issues.

After purchasing OpenText LoadRunner, you only pay for the specific protocols you want to use. There are extra expenses depending on the licenses or specific protocols you need.

We evaluated LoadRunner, JMeter, and Free Performer before choosing OpenText LoadRunner Professional.

I would recommend OpenText LoadRunner Professional for performance testing needs because it is easy to implement, covers a wide range of protocols, and integrates well with other tools. The pricing, however, could be improved.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use the solution to help customers test web applications. 

I am impressed with the tool's correlation function. 

I would like the solution to include monitoring capacity. 

I have been working with the product for more than 10 years. 

I would rate the solution's stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten. We have around 1000 virtual users for the product. 

I would rate the product's setup a nine out of ten. It's easy and straightforward. The tool's deployment took one hour to complete. 

I would rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the product a nine out of ten. 

In our organization, the solution is required for the testing of the performance of applications, response time, and the utilization of resources.

Initially, if you wanted to produce the load from different locations, you needed to have a physical machine there. But with time, the new features ensure that you can (if you want to) have one machine in the Pacific and one in North America. You can request and you can test those machines. You can connect and you can create loads from those locations. It's a very good feature. It's made things easier for us.

The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations. 

The controller is the best feature, in my opinion.

The solution is very costly. The cost is very high, especially considering a lot of other resources are available now and they are less expensive. For a small organization, it is very difficult to sustain the costs involved in having the solution or the related fees.

The technical support aspect of the solution could be improved.

Their current dashboard and their reporting is still following the earlier waterfall models. If they can add some things in the reporting, and update it so it is more modern, that would be great.

I've been using the solution for five years. My organization continues to use it.

This is a really stable tool. We haven't had issues with bugs or glitches. It hasn't crashed on us. We've been satisfied with the level of stability it provides.

The solution is quite scalable. We've run tests with 20,000-30,000 users with no problem. You can add as much as you want, depending on the kind of license you hold. There may be certain licenses that offer limitations. However, with the right license, there sholdn't be issues with regard to scaling.

We don't plan on scaling further ourselves. The plan for the future, right now, is to reduce the usage and include some freeware tools to supplement our needs. 

The technical support is not as great as we expected them to be. The one or two times we have connected with them, they referred us to a model. They often say they will get back to us instead of helping us immediately. It's not very good.

The last issue we had was related to some specific application. The tool was not able to identify the objects on the screen. We had questions, as they used some technology tool provider, and said they were testing at that time, and had mixed the technology on that screen, on the GUI. Loadrunner was not able to recognize it. They said they would come back to us, but we have not seen any answer from them since then. That was around a year back. We've had many questions since then as well.

In the end, we had to solve it internally, but there is no solution from the tool company. Maybe in the next release it will be resolved.

I don't recall looking at other options. We simply decided to go with Loadrunner from the beginning.

The initial setup of the solution was very straightforward, as I recall. It wasn't too complex.

The cloud has allowed for deployments to happen fairly fast. You need one URL and within 15-20 minutes you can have it installed on your local machine.

Due to the fact that the solution has a pretty straightforward initial setup, we didn't need outside assistance. We didn't require the help of integrators or consultants. We handled everything in-house.

In terms of ROI, LoadRunner does everything. Web-based applications or free applications have a poor ROI in comparison. You just don't get the same quality.

I don't have any information about how much it costs to run the solution. I know it is expensive, but I don't handle the accounting, so I'm unsure how much our organization actually pays. I don't believe there are other costs beyond the standard licensing fee.

There are different licence tiers. We have the maximum, so so don't have to deal with any limitations at any time.

There's two types of users on the solution. One is the actual testers. In our organization, we have twenty people using this load. The others are virtual users. The licensing is dependent upon the virtual user and you are charged according to how many virtual users are using the application. Around twenty users are virtual in my organization.

At the time we started with Loadrunner, it was the leader in the market. Now, of course, we have options. However, back then we did not have any competitors to look at or compare to.

We're partners with OpenText.

I'd advise other organizations, if cost is not a problem, to consider LoadRunner, as it is the best product on the market. However, it's not cost-effective for a small company. It's much more suited for enterprises. Smaller companies should look at other options. 

It's a good solution within the market, but it is costly in this region. It is very high. For some it might not make sense when the cost is so high and the support is somewhat lacking.

From an ease of use, installation, deployment, and multi-use tool perspective, I'd rank the solution definitely at an eight or nine out of ten. However, once you include the cost, I'd reduce the ranking to seven out of ten.

The primary use is for load testing and stress testing of applications. It tests whether services are running at an optimal point or not. It can also be used for benchmarking with other industry standards.

My admin was very useful for finding out how the system responds to load, stress, and normal situations, as well as benchmarking with other industry competitors. It also improved our response time, memory delegation, and CPU delegation. In addition, we used LoadRunner to optimize our database and website.

The features that are most valuable are synchronization capabilities and the ability to interact with it on different types of systems and protocols. It is a market leader and it integrates with different applications. When you compare it to JMeter, LoadRunner is more flexible and has more capabilities than JMeter to support different technologies.

There is room for improvement of the pilot processing and forwarding results based on the dump analysis. We have a generator, root controller, different agents, and an analyzer, so all of these are very important when it comes to LoadRunner.

LoadRunner also has to create a low-cost version that supports simpler testing and only some of the simple features would be included. This would allow people to use LoadRunner and get support from LoadRunner in terms of application testing. It is a principle that if people will get to use LoadRunner for free, LoadRunner will get more business and major payback.

I would rate it 6 out of 10, because LoadRunner is a vast thing, starting from those scenarios and then getting more into users, putting more points, correlation, load testing, and benchmarking. I have this part and hope it works well with the system. All of this is very complex. It takes a long time to learn the system well.

The stability of the solution is mostly good. The only thing is that we used a distributor to fix the problems when something went wrong at one point. If it was working out well, the results of that thing would still give you wrong results. So the distributor is not really good with problems, but the local setup is good with no problems.

We can scale it up at any point in time because we can get a distributor. We can add variants, controllers, claims, and analyzers, so it will support different types of protocols.

We just created load scenarios and we will load the scenarios to a number of virtual users. For example, we can load around 1,000 users for each scenario. In abnormal conditions, we could have 10,000 users. Also, loading them depends upon the role alias and role controller's configuration.

The size of staff required for deployment and maintenance depends upon what application and how many load scenarios you want to do, as well as the complexity of your application, how much hardware you have, and how much software support you have. All of those things will come into the picture.

They would be different types of users like a read-only user, a write-only user, etc.

We use JMeter and LoadRunner together: When we're stress testing and for service or load testing we use JMeter, while we use LoadRunner for basic load testing. We keep it like that but we can see how that mitigation works and the application is also for internal users, so we consider what it does there and we can do a lot of those things.

We are not actually concerned with the technical support of the LoadRunner. We get support for the LoadRunner through the internet.

We previously used JMeter.

The initial setup is not that difficult. When it comes to distribution systems then it will be somewhat difficult, and you need to have a proper network to work on. Another consideration is that at the distribution level and onward we need to put different controllers, unions, and claims at different locations to have a product as accurate as this.

The deployment took some time because we needed to know what type of load is expected in the future and what the break-even point would be, at which point of load. We needed to know the different scenarios that were expected and plan the load testing and the load batterings and always stick to the plan. We needed load analysis, a load plan, and benchmarking standards. All of these need to be collected. This equipment needs to be connected before we can actually begin testing.

The deployment takes around one month man days based on the application status.

We used a consultant for deployment.

We did some return on investment analysis, by using the POC (proof of concept). We compared other tools with LoadRunner, JMeter, and LoadRunner and we got a generated a scenario testing based on the place of publication and we determined that LoadRunner is good.

I don't know the licensing cost, but I think that you would get a discount for normal usage. I think there are different yearly options for different types of usage. It is not only how many users, but also whether it is shareable or not and other criteria involved in each feature. There are additional fees for the users and hardware linked to the processing.

We evaluated JMeter and LoadRunner together to form the selection process. For some scenarios we can use LoadRunner for specification road testing, while for other types of testing we prefer JMeter.

When you compare other products to LoadRunner, LoadRunner has been in the market for a long time. You could use it to integrate with everything. Also, it can generate an input that we can use in any version, it can improve our performance, and we can put input in and we get a command from LoadRunner for that.

I use this product primarily for performance testing in various software applications. There are web-related use cases, as well.

The most valuable feature is the ability to create performance test cases quickly and then execute them. It provides a lot of powerful features to do that very efficiently and effectively.

The flexibility could be improved. For example, there are some use cases where I prefer to use NeoLoad rather than LoadRunner because of the flexibility that it provides.

I have been working with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for the past 10 to 15 years.

We have had no significant issues with stability or performance.

It is easy to scale and configure. We have approximately 50 people that work with it.

There are issues from time to time that we need help with. There have been specific problems that we reached out to the vendor about, and they have mostly been resolved on time.

I am satisfied with the support.

I have used several other performance testing tools.

One of the other ones that I have used is NeoLoad, which is a more recent entrant in this space. It's a lot more flexible to use than some other products.

When it comes to setting up test cases, the process is slightly different in NeoLoad. It is a little more automated than LoadRunner.

NeoLoad is also more cost-effective than LoadRunner.

The suitability of one product over another depends on the use case. Both of them have their strengths. LoadRunner is a much more longstanding and mature product in the market.

The initial setup is a complex process that is not too straightforward. However, with some expertise, it is not a big problem.

It took a couple of days for us to deploy.

We did most of the implementation internally. I handled it myself.

LoadRunner is more expensive than some competing products.

The pricing is a little too high. However, everything is mostly included in the initial license. It depends on how many nodes you want to set up. This is what determines some of the additional costs.

My advice for anybody who is looking into implementing LoadRunner is to try it out. Start playing with the product and test it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are it using the solution mainly for the REST-based API.

It is quite a good tool. It supports a medical protocol which we tried to explore in other products, but none of them had. It is very difficult to get data tool support in these solutions but LoadRunner does support them, it is a big advantage. Overall, It is pretty simple, easy to use.

My team members predominately used the product to do development but I don't think it needs anything in a way of improvements.

I have been using the solution for over two years.

We didn't see any challenge with this product at all.

The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it is quite scalable.

We found the support to be good. Whenever there is an issue with anything, within 24-hours we get an answer. If we want someone from their team to look into an issue, they will log it, analyze it and get back to us.

The installation took around 20 to 30 minutes.

We did the installation and deployment of the product ourselves. It's simple and pretty easy. We were using the LRP, we did not need any technical guidance for anything. We simply installed the configuration, then a few clicks, and we were done.

There is a licensing cost that is expensive. There is also the Enterprise version of the software which allows other features that the Professional does not, such as, license sharing.

We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market.

I rate OpenText LoadRunner Professional an eight out of ten.

I am primarily using LoadRunner to perform tests on HTTP and HTTPS.

This solution provides a one-stop-shop for what we need.

I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful.

You can do live monitoring, which is very useful compared to Apache JMeter.

This is good for a large-scale organization because it supports a lot of protocols.

One of the problems with LoadRunner was always outside sharing. However, now that they are offering a cloud version, this may already work well. 

The infrastructure support can be improved because there are a lot of limitations with the hardware that you can use.

I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator.

I have been using LoadRunner for about ten years.

This solution is very stable. We use it very frequently.

LoadRunner is scalable, although there are some limitations that depend on the application type. That is where you need to scale by adding more load generators. 

We have approximately ten people who are using LoadRunner in the company.

Technical support for LoadRunner is quite good. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

In addition to LoadRunner, I was also using Apache JMeter for about three years. JMeter does not support live monitoring unless you use a plugin. However, JMeter has better infrastructure support than LoadRunner.

My company did not switch from JMeter to LoadRunner. They already had already purchased LoadRunner licenses. There are a lot of inherent limitations with JMeter, including analytics capabilities.

The initial setup for the standalone version is very simple and very easy compared to a solution like Apache JMeter. If you have the licenses then you can get started very soon.

It takes perhaps 20 minutes to deploy, depending on the machine configuration. Only one person is required because it has an auto-install package.

For the standalone version of LoadRunner, you don't need help from consultants. However, for something like a performance center then you need a consultant to help.

The licensing fees are based on the number of users. There is also a free community edition, but it depends on what protocol you're using and how many users you want. Essentially, the licensing fees are based on the need.

This is a very mature tool that is always improving and has very good support as well. More or less, they're always trying to revolve their limitations.

In order to use LoadRunner, you need specific skills. In order to use tools of this type then you need performance engineering skills. My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is first to be clear about your use case and what you are trying to do. Develop and follow up on your own performance-testing strategy before implementing LoadRunner. That said, I highly recommend this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.