OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

Our primary use case of this solution is to do testing for banks and financial institutions. 

At the moment I like to use the TruClient port, add them and create other versions of TruClient, because TruClient is usually too big to handle heavy loads, so you need to recreate a vamp version for whatever you will need. 

Sometimes I have problems when I want to record a script if the application is a little special, like the login part. I think the TruClient works well and they are developing new things there all the time. So it's getting better. I would like to see an easier way to move things from SoapUI to the same addressed services and postman or something like that. Because the developers will use the other products and then the website and then load them at no cost. So if it was just one step to move from one system to another it would be a great improvement.

The solution is quite stable. I've seen a few bugs of course - they will always be there. That's not a big deal and I just work around it. 

I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients. It eats lots of memory, so usually, I have two or three low generators while I have the one controller. We have had some problems with when we are using a BPM system. In the beginning, it was quite difficult when we changed to this other system and we wanted to connect to the home computer. 

We have about 12 users, mostly testers, working on the solution currently. Then we have two people working in our performance center. 

The technical support is good. Whenever we had a problem, they solved it. 

The initial setup was quite straightforward and it's quite easy to install the standard version. Everything takes less than an hour.

My advice to others would be to look into the application differently. In the next version, I would like to see an easier way to create and use TruClient for development and to move it to another version. They already have this function, but it is not very user-friendly. You cannot do a correlation of things now, because it is on a higher level now. So you have to do a lot of work. 

My rating for this solution is nine out of ten. I've used it a lot, so I guess it's possible to make things better, but it's been around for a while, so I think it's very good.

Enables us to test most of the products and projects that we have across all the different technologies, without having to look at other tools.

It allows us to get better reliability, quicker, for the products and solutions. That means fewer critical performance issues when the product goes to market. 

Probably integrations. We still have some issues with integration with things like SiteScope which, obviously, being another HPE product should be very straightforward, but there are always issues around that.

We would like to see more integrations and easier integrations. We have other products that we have integrations with, other third-party products, which seem to be straightforward, ALM and JIRA for example. But for integration between HPE products, we would like to see that go a bit more smoothly.

About 12 years.

it's stable. It's been around for a long time. There are no real issues, no defects or anything.

Scalability is good. There are lots of different options ranging from the freely available versions through to Enterprise and Performance Center. And obviously features like StormRunner Load allow you to scale more quickly and effectively.

We've used technical support quite a lot but not so much lately because it's something we're very familiar with, so we tend to manage it. But when we've used it we've been happy with it.

It was a very long time ago. It was complicated only because of the age of the technology then and the infrastructure we had.

Updating, it's something you just have to plan for, but otherwise it was fairly straightforward.

There are various things we haven't been able to test so we're continuously looking at other vendors to complement it. NeoLoad being one, recently. That's it really.

It covers the most technology, is the most reliable, it gives us the most features.

It's not a 10 out of 10 because of the issues with integrations and it's not quite the one solution, the one-part solution for everything.

I don't know if it's really the product's fault but there are products that, later on, I can't test or can't script against or can't replay against and it's just understanding whether that's a limitation of the tool or a limitation of the product. Part that is design as well as trying to actually script against it.

The capabilities and flexibility of the Controller, the ability to monitor the systems under test, and the comprehensive results Analysis which saves a great deal of time.

More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces.

15 years

LoadRunner generally deploys without issues.

Its a complex product and there are usually a few bugs in the point zero releases, it is generally pretty reliable.

Sometimes the controller can crash, this is usually after opening and closing several scenarios without closing the controller. Closing the controller after a couple of scenarios opened will avoid the problem.

Scalability is great, I have personally used LoadRunner with up to 72,000 virtual users, and 35 load generators.

I don't have recent experience with HPE customer service.

I don't have recent experience with HPE tech support.

I started performance testing with LoadRunner and I'm still using it. I have used other tools, but its the best all rounder.

Initial setup is straightforward as LoadRunner is pretty much standalone and just needs connectivity to the system under test.

I generally implement it myself.

The cost depends greatly on the needs of the testing engagement.

The free community licence (permanent for 50 VUsers) available from Version 12 is very useful. For small tests this is sufficient and there is no licence cost to use it.

The community licence is excellent for training as well, you get full functionality for as long as you like.

No

Take a good look at your requirements, LoadRunner is the best for those who need a full blown product, or a diverse range of protocols to be tested. However not everyone needs this. There are other products that do parts of what LoadRunner does just as well and cheaper. Because LoadRunner is so widely used, there are many people with LoadRunner experience available, it will be harder to find experience in an alternative tool. There are cheaper and free alternatives, but these generally take longer to set up and use. Often the software licence costs are far less than the professional services cost for a performance testing engagement. The higher cost of a LoadRunner licence will be offset by time saved by using it.

For me as a user, the flexibility in different protocols and things like that which can be tested with the tool.

We're able to test standalone from individual machines.

The stability on the old versions is good. On the newer versions, the bleeding edge is still being worked on.

It's very scalable. No issues with scalability.

Premium support is great, but before that when we just had general support, it was not all that great. We had issues with trying to get support to call us back on tickets and turnaround time on resolution.

It's not exactly straightforward. Their instructions were not all they could have been, but we still got it installed.

The solution is used for scripting and debugging. 

I've found the option - remote application via LoadRunner Proxy to be the most valuable feature which played vital role in recording network traffic of mobile application. Very helpful for mobile scripting

It supports a wide range of protocols, which I don't think any other load-testing tool can offer.

It's very stable and reliable. 

The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging.

The installation process and the initial configuration could be a little easier.

We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly.

For someone that doesn't have a lot of experience with the solution, it might be challenging. Even after five years of using it, I still find it challenging. 

The solution can be quite expensive.

There is slow performance when you are opening multiple instances on one machine.

Five years.

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs, glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

For scalability, I will use LoadRunner Enterprise, not LoadRunner Professional. LoadRunner Professional is purely for scripting and debugging purposes.

Tech support is very responsive and knowledgeable

Positive

So far, I have also used JMeter. Compared to JMeter, LoadRunner is the best tool out there. As per the feedback from my peers, most of them prefer LoadRunner in terms of performance testing - executions, scripting and debugging (which provides more insight during our work)

The initial setup and configuration is pretty complex. 

I'd rate the solution a three out of five in terms of ease of setup.

It is very expensive compared to the other tools available in the market. 

I'd rate it a two out of five in terms of affordability.

I'm satisfied with the product. I'd rate it nine out of ten. 

Our primary use case of this solution is for performance testing and load testing.

The solution improves our organization because we can use it for recording scripts, enhancing the scripts and for running test revisions. We can therefore preform test revisions and do analysis.

What I really like about this solution, is the user-friendly interface and the loading and repair properties.

Currently the solution doesn't have recording options or sometimes we're not be able to see the recording options. So that needs to improve. I also think the solution should have more screen compatibility, even if you're using a different operating system like Windows 10, Windows 8 or Windows 8.1. Sometimes we find that there is a difference between the desktop screen and the laptop screen. So, it should be compatible for both screens.

The solution is stable and the only compatibility issues lie within the screens. I think there should be an improvement to the compatibility to both laptop and desktop screens. Sometimes we are not be able to click on some of the buttons due to the screen mismatching and compatibility issues. 

We have about 200 users and the scalability is good so far. We don't plan to increase our usage so I am not sure how scalable it will be with more users.

We get really good support from the support team.

The initial setup and installation of the software were very easy and straightforward. 

LoadRunner has a variety of options and different protocols that will support all types of applications categories like web application, monitor and any internal applications or desktop applications. The customization protocol also is user-friendly and if I have to rate the solution, I will give it a nine out of ten. In the next version I would like to see specific protocols when I want to do performance settings for any desktop clients.