OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) Reviews

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. 

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.

We use OpenText LoadRunner Professional to run performance test for codes.

The solution helps my clients save time. It is easier to capture reports and improves product quality. The product helps to identify customer defects during performance tests and reduces workloads. The product has improved my client's user interaction. It has reduced peak load times.

The tool needs to work on capture script feature.

The product is very stable.

OpenText LoadRunner Professional's technical support is good. However, I do not contact them often.

Positive

OpenText LoadRunner Professional is easier to use than IBM. It supports a lot of protocols compared to competitors.

The tool's deployment is easy and can be completed in one to two days.

The solution's pricing is expensive.

Our clients are mostly government agencies and enterprises. I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

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.

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.