OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) Reviews

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

I have been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for approximately 11 years.

The stability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is very high. It is the leading tool for stability.

The scalability is good.

The technical support of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. I had an issue with the licensing and their response time is slow. They can improve on this in the future.

I would rate the technical support of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional a three out of five.

The licensing of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. If it can be easier and the concurrent run can be included with the current total number of users, it would be helpful.

I would recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional above all other testing tools.

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

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.

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.