OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

We use this solution for performance testing, and to identify bottlenecks.

This solution has helped us to eliminate software performance risk before going live.

The most valuable feature of this solution is VuGen, the Virtual User Generator. The scripting can be done easily.

The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period.

The price of this solution should be cheaper.

It's got a lot of protocols that support all our business requirements, such as Java, HTTP, and Citrix. It gives us one tool that supports all this technology.

We don't have to work on another platform as we only have to learn one tool. There's a lot of information, help, and best practices available. It's a market-leading tool so there are lots of people with knowledgeable experience. Our employees are productive from day one.

Because we're a telecommunications company with millions of subscribers, we run very high volume tests for 24-48 hours. LoadRunner has been very, very stable during these tests and has gotten us results. It gives us expert diagnoses of our tests with very detailed, in-depth analyses.

We'd like for it to incorporate a tool for ordering module that would work with our proprietary in-house ordering module scripting protocol.

We have no issues with deployment.

It's very stable.

It scales very, very well.

They're very good. We have issues, we contact them, and they help us solve the issues.

Setup was very straightforward. We installed, applied the licenses, and started using it.

There is Neotys NeoLoad and SOASTA CloudTest, but LoadRunner is the best.

I would definitely recommend using LoadRunner. Use the latest two client protocols for object scripting.

• It allows you to create your own customized code.
• It provides an analysis report after running a test scenario.
• It supports maximum protocols.
• It's user-friendly.

It generates reports in a format that's very easy to understand for both our own internal use and other audiences. It supports Citrix and SAP protocols, which is very helpful for our clients to understand bottlenecks if there are any on their network.

It should support GWT and mobile testing, including network virtualization.

I've used it for eight years.

We didn't encounter any issues during deployment.

We haven't encountered any stability issues.

We haven't encountered any issues while scaling.

I'd say that customer service is not good.

Technical support is also not good.

I used NeoLoad, but it does not support Citrix, so we chose LoadRunner.

Initial setup was not that difficult.

We did the implementation through an in-house team.

My advice is for you to have a load generator machine that has a good configuration for handling large volumes of users.

It is very costly, but LoadRunner works perfectly. It fits our needs in the way we use it, but you should make sure your use justifies the cost.

We have only web-based services, mobile testing in scope, and the user load is maximum 1000, so we could have used NeoLoad, but there were lots of other factors in switching.

I mainly use LoadRunner Professional for performance testing of web applications.

LoadRunner Professional's best features are that it's easy to capture scenarios and create scripts for testing, the testing runs smoothly with small resources, and it's very easy to create reports with a variety of indicators.

LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved.

I've been using LoadRunner Professional for over ten years.

LoadRunner Professional is quite stable.

LoadRunner Professional is scalable for small organizations but struggles with more than twenty or thirty agents.

We've also been using IBM Rational Performance Test but have found that LoadRunner is better than the IBM tools.

The initial setup was quite easy, and the deployment took one to two days.

The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user.

I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use. I would rate it eight out of ten.

• The custom scripting that it allows me to carry out sections and find my own variables in LoadRunner.
• I can use True Client, which is also an HP product, but LoadRunner gives me more flexibility in writing my own code.

We use LoadRunner to script our applications and then run those as synthetic monitoring from BPM. So the BPM are not only proactive if any of our solutions or if any of our applications are down, but also gives us features like the screen capture editor, such as what are we seeing on the webpage while we are seeing on the application. So that kind of synthetic monitoring. We have three data centers, and we have BPM all through the data centers, and isolating and troubleshooting through a data center is helpful with BPM, and LoadRunner is indirectly helping with that.

The stability is good.

We don't use it for performance testing so scalability is artificial for LoadRunner for us.

I don't remember the last time we reached out to tech support.

I'm really happy with what they’re giving me for what I do, but because I don't do performance monitoring or performance testing using LoadRunner, I'm not completely aware of everything else, but for what I do it's a great tool for me.

Do a POC with your own environment and don't rely on the list of capabilities that a solution just gives you doing a demo in your environment. That's what is the key thing for you to decide on what is the solution that you want.

We primarily use the solution for performance testing and performance tuning.

I like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good.

Pricing should be lowered on the solution. Right now it's quite expensive.

The solution uses a lot of memory and then it dies. It's difficult to work with the solution sometimes when you run a scenario it dies. They need to make the solution lighter somehow.

If the correlation can be adjusted so that it's a dynamic correlation, it could be a little bit better and it would help a lot of users.

I've been using the solution for ten years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. I don't see a problem with scaling, because you can schedule multiple instances.

Technical support has been good so far.

We've basically used LoadRunner since the beginning; we find it more user-friendly than other tools.

The initial setup is easy. It's not difficult.

I handled the implementation myself. How log deployment takes depends on the application. It could take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks.

We started using the solution when it was version 8.2 and now we are on version 10.6. We use the on-premises deployment model. 

I would recommend the solution to others. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

We have several use cases for this solution. One of them is an automobile website for a huge dealership and we are doing load testing for them. We have projects in the hospitality industry, like hotel bookings. Our projects involve both API testing as well as browser-based load testing.

The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports.

The auto-correlation is much better than the different protocols that it supports.

LoadRunner is easy to use.

The debugging capability is difficult to use and should be improved. This is one area where some of the other products we use are better.

I have been using LoadRunner for five years.

We use LoadRunner on a daily basis and it is good.

It is easier to scale when you have the online, cloud option.

We probably have about 200 users and in the future, we may increase our usage.

We have been in touch with technical support but not very often. They were helpful when we did contact them.

We have used multiple testing tools like Visual Studio and NeoLoad. We have all of these as options. LoadRunner is easier to use and has support for better protocols.

Five to six engineers are required to maintain this solution.

Our in-house team deployed this solution.

NeoLoad was one of the options that we considered, but we ultimately went with LoadRunner.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.