OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) Reviews

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.

LoadRunner gives us real data regarding our performance testing. It's the way that the tool itself works and the way that we can have information coming from the tools.

The availability and the fact that HPE people want to help is something that I appreciate because they are with us, they try to help, they try to understand what we need and they act accordingly.

For us it's really used by a specific group of people. It's the efficiency that it gave us to do performance testing and get results rapidly.

It needs to be easier to use. I know LoadRunner so I think it's a tool that's difficult to understand. We are working with specialists to help us, but it's difficult to find those resources. They need to simplify a bit the way the tool works.

We've had no issues scaling it for our needs.

It's good but we need to manage exactly what we need from them. Sometimes on the business side it's not clear enough. When it's not clear we don't have the results we need. The next time we need to make sure to correctly define our needs and involve them in that way.

We didn't use any other solution previously.

It's not straightforward because for us it was because it was an upgrade of the infrastructure as well. So at the same time we changed the server, we also changed the infrastructure. It was not because of the product itself, it was more linked to what we needed to do at that time.

In many scenarios, you have to be able to run or put load on your application, and that's what that product does, and it does it pretty well.

In the old days, if you wanted to run load on your application, you would send out an email to 20 people, and you're all trying to do a load on an application. It allows you to scale up hundreds-thousands of users in order to simulate that.

I think it needs to have better reporting. After you do all the load, you really want good reporting.

We've had no issues with the stability.

You scale up based on the amount of load that you want to put on your application. No problem there. They have really good products, and I'm looking forward to the next project, HPE Agile Manager.

Not directly through HPE. We go through HPE's vendor partner, which is Checkpoint Technologies, and they provide excellent technical support.

We used JMeter which is open source, same problem though - reporting is open source. Zero support because it's open source. When we ran into a problem, no help from JMeter. That's why we moved to using LoadRunner.

We have our license pool with 100 concurrent users. I like the concurrent license model. I don't have any problem scaling.

Make sure you take into consideration how much overhead LoadRunner is adding to the load.

Powerful scripting tool to best record user actions programmatically. Flexible and versatile scripting engine to extend tests with success-failure checks, thus making testing more intelligent. Ramping of many concurrent users to make the most representative testing possible. Integration of external measurements in test scenario's. Extensive vendor documentation and help system included. Extensive experience and support on various fora, blogs and many other support resources. Good availability of expertise in the form of programmers and hardcore testers.

Complexity. LoadRunner is not simple to learn by installing it and "doing it". Especially when using different data sources to do cross measurements of system performance. Performance testing with a tool like this requires planning and skilled resources. Fortunately these are easily acquired these days. 

Price. I've used LoadRunner for performance testing purposes for a number of years on various projects and I've always been impressed by the versatility and plain power of this testing tool. LoadRunner's scripting engine is very flexible and the fact that it's able to quickly and easily simulate hundreds of concurrent users makes it the performance testing tool of choice for years running. LR is constantly updated and improved to cope with a changing world.

10 years

HP offers extensive documentation and support services to help its customer base. True, the product costs a few bucks more than the (open source) alternatives like Neoload, QA Load and others, but in my opinion you get a solid performance test in return (if properly executed of course).

Language Support
Analysis
Monitoring

It expedites the process of creating test scripts

Network monitoring

5 years

No.

No.

No.

Excellent

Good.

Little complex

JMeter

It is very strong in providing load testing solutions. It provides a lot of protocol support and its reporting utility is very good. Also, the virtual user generation, controllers, and analyses are good.

It helped our organization to run successful performance testing cycles and to identify the bottlenecks of the application. It helped the clients run their application successfully and smoothly.

We would like to be able to implement the tool in such a way that load testing can also be done in the cloud.

We've used it for four years.

There was an issue that I faced with different versions of the controller and Performance Center. They should have been of the same version.

I didn't have many stability issues. The tool is very stable as you just need to check what protocols you want to test.

No issues encountered.

Customer support is good, and the turnaround time for requests is very fast. Also, they have created a forum where experts will help you without creating a ticket.

8/10

I used JMeter and Oracle Application Testing Suite as well, but according to our client’s wish we went for this solution.

It is straightforward. You just have to go through the read-me document and installation guide provided along with the software.

We did it in-house.

I would say it is true value for the money.

The license cost is much more compared to other tools available, but it will give you a complete package for load testing your application.

I evaluated JMeter and Oracle Application Testing Suite, but this proved better than those.

If you are looking for customer satisfaction, you can simply go and get it.

The feature we've found most valuable for us is the number of protocols available. We test many different commercially available tools or Java applications that prep to Zero OpenJDK, SAP, etc. But we've found that LoadRunner is the only solution that makes all protocols available in one tool. That's the number one benefit for us apart from its monitoring and analytics.

We're a testing department and LoadRunner is a business enabler. Without it, we wouldn't be able to make any money.

The look and feel of StormRunner is very modern and simple to use. If could be a huge improvement if LoadRunner could be the same.

We've been using it since 2002.

The deployment of LoadRunner is issue-free.

Stability depends on what happens during a test. Generally, LoadRunner is quite stable, but sometimes when a test is running, the system will abort it prior to completion even though the results are still accessible.

It also depends on what you want to do with LoadRunner. If you have your own application and you want to load test it, then LoadRunner works fine. But if, like us, you work with customers' applications, you may need more functionalities which LoadRunner may not have.

We're a pretty large department within our company. We have an enterprise license agreement and can simply get more licenses if we need more controllers.

Technical support is challenging. We have premier support for ALM and Performance Center, and we usually get inexperienced engineers when we contact tech support. They always ask for log files. We've been using HP tools for over 10 years and we can fix most problems ourselves. But, if we can't, we have to contact R&D, but that's too long a wait for us to get resolution of our issues.

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.

The most valuable feature of LoadRunner is its ability to simulate multiple uses at the same time. That's the most important thing and the primary reason I use it.

I don't believe that there are any other good tools for performance testing. It's either use LoadRunner for performance testing or don't do performance testing at all.

We have a lot of issues right now with the Citrix client, so this should be improved.

Deployment has been fine.

We've had no issues with stability.

Scalability is not that important for LoadRunner since we don't have many people working on it at the same time.

Quite good, though sometimes it depends on who you’re dealing with. Sometimes you have bad luck and get a guy who doesn't know much about it, is new, or is in training, but most of the time technical support is fine.

It was rather easy and you can do it yourself.

For functional testing, we look for alternatives sometimes, especially for the execution part.

I don't think there's a better product for all systems.

• 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.