OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is an on-premises solution, but we have our own internal cloud where we have deployed it. However, it is considered an on-premise solution.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional can be used on any application. This is a tool we use to create a concurrent transaction on an application. We can do traffic simulating for end-users behavior. 

The most valuable features of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional are the separate module for scripting, execution analysis, and integration with a lot of new things pipeline areas. They keep updating their releases. Recently, they have released different versions, such as the professional and enterprise. They're coming up with new features which are good. 

The most important aspect of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is the security of the tool and what it provides as a result.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional can improve the implementation of digital areas, such as digital testing, UI and native application, and native mobile applications.

I have been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for approximately 14 years.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is a stable solution.

The scalability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is good. I can scale up and it has wide support for different protocols. Pretty powerful in terms of logins to different pipelines, such as Gen Kings.

We have approximately 30 to 40 customers and approximately 300 users using the solution.

For the Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is not possible for them to provide us with a resolution because there is a bottleneck from the solution side, but they are proactive.

The initial setup of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is simple for me. However, I understand new people have to learn, and I would still rate it simple. The deployment took approximately 30 to 45 minutes. Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is straightforward but the Enterprise version is complicated.

There is an annual license required to use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional. There are not any additional costs other than the licensing fees to use it.

My advice to others is that this solution is good and they should 

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

Micro Focus does not have the limitations that other solutions have. It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system. It also has multiple protocols.

The initial start-up of Micro Focus LoadRunner could be improved. When we add 20 or 30 scripts, the refresh is completed one by one. I would like to be able to select all of the script at one time, so it can be completed in a single click, reducing the time required.

I have been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for five and a half years.

The solution is stable.

Micro Focus is scalable.

Micro Focus LoadRunner is the best tool in the market. There are many open-source tools but most have limitations, Micro Focus does not. 

I would rate this solution a 9 out of 10.

We use this product to test our web application that is used for internet banking.

The most important feature for us is that it supports a lot of protocols because we support all of them, including HTTP, FTP, mainframe, and others. This means that it is very scalable.

I would like to see easier integration with our CICD pipeline.

The product is pretty heavy and should be more lightweight.

I would like to see a browser extension where we can start the development. This would be helpful because right now, this solution is good for UTM integration and performance testing, but if we want to scale then it is difficult.

I have only been using LoadRunner Professional for a short time because I just joined the company, and I used to work with open-source technology.

We have six or seven people using this product.

As we have just begun using it, we have note let had to contact support.

The initial setup is pretty easy. This product is Java-based and you just have to add the independent libraries and dependencies. It is more of a client-server based architecture

This is not a cheap product.

I have primarily used JMeter, which is open-source and free to use.

I have also used Silk Performer, although that was a long way back.

The suitability of one solution over another is very dependant on the use case. When it comes to performance testing, it is very specific to the use case. It depends on your goal and what you want to do.

These days, testing is not a separate activity. It's more about how fast you can quickly deliver and time to market. This is a product that I can recommend, although it depends on the use case. The first question has to be one of budget because LoadRunner is not cheap. Things differ from company to company. At the same time, not all of the free tools can perform all of the functions. It is based on requirements.

If they're a small company, such as a startup e-commerce company, then they might be better off implementing an open-source product.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are customers of Micro Focus and I'm an end-user.

Graph monitoring is a valuable feature. 

Some form of automation is needed in this product, whether it's integration with CI/CD or providing the facility to import JSON files, so that we can automatically create the scripts. I think it's reasonable to expect that kind of feature. 

I've been using this solution for four years. 

The solution is stable although we sometimes face issues in developing scripts but it's a problem that can be easily reverified and edited.

The solution is scalable.

Customer support is available online and it's good enough for solving the general problems that pop up. 

The setup is straightforward. We are a large company so I'm not sure how many are using this solution. In my department there are four users on our current project. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10.

All of our installations are on-premises at the moment.  

One of the most valuable features to me is that LoadRunner is familiar. I have worked with it for so long that I know where everything is and I know how it is supposed to work.  

But focusing on actual program features, all I can say is it has good protocol coverage.  

I have not had a really good look at the newest versions of LoadRunner. The problem I have always had with LoadRunner — and even more so with Performance Center — is that it is not very good with agile delivery and it is very difficult to integrate. Software engineers who have been working in agile delivery have been saying this for some time, and have been having success with alternatives.

Also, Performance Center has historically been quite unreliable and difficult. It tends to fail at collation. I think that is because of the Load Runner architecture that Performance Center inherited. Everything waits until the end of a test to collate and it does not always work out well. I know that Micro Focus has done something about that in the new version. But that is the worst thing that happens: with LoadRunner or Performance Center you run a big critical test and you can't get the results.  

I have personally been using LoadRunner and Performance Center for 20 years. I think it's been the backbone of performance testing for 20+ years and must be given credit for helping establish the discipline.

Stability has been an issue. It has really been a big problem for us with Performance Center in particular. Crashing or exiting during collation is not acceptable.   

We have not been totally satisfied with the scalability. We tend to have more issues with Performance Center. The more you try to grow use with it on-prem, the more headaches you have. Often working with LoadRunner and smaller environments is more reliable. We believe the SaaS solution might be better because you have got centralized management.  

Most of my experience is in the early days of Mercury, they were brilliant. They were really good and helped resolve issues. I have not been using them recently.  

Right now we use LoadRunner and Performance Center depending on what we believe are best practices for different situations. We are considering evaluating other options as well, including LoadRunner SaaS.

The two Micro Focus products are interesting to compare. LoadRunner is very easy to set up. Performance Center needs an expert. I can install LoadRunner in minutes by myself. To do the installation properly with Performance Center needs a specialist and takes weeks.  

Plenty of people seem to have installed Performance Center in a couple of days, but when they use it they usually have problems. You really need to do it properly. I do plan to have a look at the newer versions, and maybe those implementations will be smoother.  

Advice that I would give people considering LoadRunner is that I would recommend exploring other tools first or at least in comparison. There are lots of really good open-source or even just cheaper alternatives. Depending on your use case, the other options might be much better. LoadRunner has broad protocol coverage. Sometimes you have got no choice but to go with a solution because of what it can do. But I think the days of LoadRunner being the only solution out there for this kind of testing have gone. There are some very good competitors now and where the competitor can do the job, you will save money.  

On the scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional as about a six. I have not taken a good look at the latest version, but my current experience with the version of the product we use has not been great.  

What we like the most is that it integrates with UC. We use UC for our front-end user experience. It's a more realistic user experience. 

We use the script from the user experience and we use the action times from the UC.

If they were able to, I would say that the scalability could be improved. If the costs were not as expensive to upgrade, then we would scale it more.

The initial setup could be simplified.

I would like to see better licensing costs. 

I have been working with this solution for ten years.

It's a stable solution. In the ten years that we have been using it, I have only had an issue once.  We had an issue with the protocol where it didn't support the job. We contacted support.

It's a scalable solution but I think that the Enterprise version is more scalable and more manageable.

It's fine for us, as we only have a few projects a year. On a larger scale, Enterprise would be better than the Professional edition.

When I had contacted technical support they very helpful.

Previous versions were easy to install but we struggled with the LoadRunner Enterprise to get it to work. It was a bit challenging.

LoadRunner Professional is an expensive product.

I like using LoadRunner and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for LoadRunner is a lot of business transactions, physical scenarios, and incoming applications. We use LoadRunner for building and it is very easy to use because of its support for all of the protocols. 

LoadRunner is a very systematic tool for anyone to use. Even someone who is actually a first time user of LoadRunner can actually get a lot of benefit out of the tool.

LoadRunner is an expensive tool, so mostly it is large-sized companies that would prefer LoadRunner over other legacy applications. Being with LoadRunner for so long has given a lot of opportunities for us to experiment with large workloads and even the various different types of extensions. That has actually really benefited the organization.

One of the most valuable features of LoadRunner is the correlation feature which is automated now. All year when I started this with a lot of manual processes, it would actually capture dynamic values, but now these new versions have made it very easy for any newcomer to form whatever you want.

Get in other agitation settings which are very detailed and any tester can go through everything they intend to do, customize their execution patterns. The results are very detailed, presenting a very comprehensive summary that anyone can read and understand.

If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help. My main recommendations for improvement for LoadRunner are:

• It would be good if LoadRunner can categorize the different transactions based on the time taken to do the test, against the transactions first.
• The reports should be a little more comprehensive, more detailed.
• There should be a way to use the default monitoring tool integrated with LoadRunner.

For example, if I have to look for monitoring I have to always integrate an extending tool to LoadRunner and then monitor my task. If LoadRunner is not driving and they can afford to have their own monitoring enabled, that would help.

The LoadRunner report also needs more information other than the straightforward notes, like response time.

To be frank, the earlier version (graded I-5 and graded I-6) was very bad for me. I had a really bad experience on that version. 

One of the problems we had was that one of the scripts that we used to create worked and then there were some bugs that were coming out runtime support. 

The recent version runs well, and actually, LoadRunner has removed those bugs. It's been a good experience.

In terms of driving, LoadRunner is at a level that is a little riddled but otherwise, it's been a good thing. LoadRunner has the kind of features that are much more advanced. The comparison is IIS & NeoLoad. It is very scalable.

Very rarely have I actually wondered how to use tech support because most of the bugs, most of the issues have been resolved by ourselves, through online browsing and materials. I've not really chatted with the LoadRunner tech support.

The setup of LoadRunner is very straightforward. It comes with one retro file which installs all the applications which handle the individual applications also. It's a very easy setup, just that the sizing of the tools is much less. Other than that, the setup is pretty easy.

The three factors we look for in a vendor are: 

1. The pricing 
2. The features
3. The customer support

Definitely, the features are most important to complement the pricing.

Since it's 11 years that the company has been using LoadRunner, there was no other tool on the market that would actually come to the standards of LoadRunner and that is why we had chosen such a tool. 

Look at the options on other software which are not as pricey as LoadRunner. It's true that LoadRunner has all the features and a lot of ways to help, but then not all companies require such extensive tools. That is where I would probably suggest asking the pricing and the features integrated.

At that time it was Silk Performer vs. LoadRunner, and Silk Performer was not optimal enough in terms of its features. We were having a lot of issues trying to create our scripts using Silk Performer and latched upon LoadRunner. We found out that LoadRunner has got a lot more features than Silk Performer and was able to cover the tasks.

I would give LoadRunner around 8 out of 10 in the review, considering the fact, that I know how good the tool is. There are a few areas for improvement, the results, and the monitoring tools. Other than that, I think I'm pretty satisfied with LoadRunner.

There are actually some cool features in LoadRunner where we can have multiple users at the same time. Some of the help features in the communities, what HP has are pretty good. We have quick turnaround time for the support as well, sometimes. It is helping our application to performance test and load test. I didn't use much of the tools, and have been using these tools since eight, nine years now, so I'm more into that. I see HP is constantly improving the features of the tool.

We have the manpower, the resources. One of the thing which I realized is let's say if you have another tool which is equal or there are more comparable abilities, but it's kind of hard to get resources for those tools who are skilled. I see a bunch of resources easily available in the market for LoadRunner and HP products and I feel like this could be possible because it's kind of industry leader in the testing tools or something.

There are a lot of people using LoadRunner I can say that. The issues what we get from doing performance testing, some of the issues are not specific to tool, but because we have such a huge community in HP tools we kind of get some solutions easily from the outside world as well in the communities I guess.

The demo that I've seen today, it sounds pretty cool but it still has some limitations I guess. They thought it is only limited to web and mobile right now, and it's currently not supported for all the products of what we have in performance center. We'll all have to wait and see how they come up with full version of the features.

I would like to see the features what they are saying in the demo for StormRunner, if they can have the features of Performance Center and LoadRunner combined, put it in StormRunner, that would be awesome because StormRunner looks pretty good the way they are explaining, it's like all one stop shop where you can just manage everything from one webpage but it's not complete, it doesn't look like it's complete. If we can get all those other features included in the new one, then that would be awesome.

I believe it's good. When it first started I didn't realize it was so good, but over the years I'm seeing that it's getting more and more stable. It looks like HP is putting some efforts to make it more stable.

Scalability, I think with the previous versions maybe I was not sure but the new version which I'm seeing, and the cool features what they are showing off, I think scalability is very good, you could scale up the tool within no time.

It's on and off at times, depends on what tech guy you are working with. Some of them I find very technical strong and they were able to help, but it has to go through some processes. You have a basic layer and if it's not resolvable there, it goes to the next level so it has a process, which may take some time.

I'm involved in catering the needs of my company's performance testing for all the applications. We use a variety of HP products but our team, where I'm concerned more is HP LoadRunner. We are also upgrading into Performance Center as we speak. We are more into HP LoadRunner.

LoadRunner has easy usability right now, and it's pretty much documented on the features, and has a how-to-do use of videos, learning materials. It's easy to use once you have some basic training and you can get along easily. It will give your company return of investment I believe if you're in invest in it.