We performed a comparison between Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise and Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional comes out on top in this comparison. Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is a mature and feature-rich solution with a proven ROI, whereas Enterprise users report being dissatisfied with the product’s ROI.
"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"It allows you to work out how well you are doing project-wise because you see the number of scripts done, the number of tests run, and whether you have mapped all your requirements to it."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is recording and replaying, and the fact that there are multiple options available to do this."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise supports a lot of technologies. The existing performance testing that this tool is capable of is good. The protocols that are available are widely varied when compared to other performance testing tools."
"Probably its prime advantage, it provides a centralized location for testing."
"The tool is very easy to set up and get running."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly."
"With LoadRunner Enterprise, doing various types of performance testing, load testing, and automation testing has been very helpful for some of the teams."
"It has features for recording. The best feature with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is that there is very little bottleneck or overhead issues. With LoadRunner, you can spawn 2000 contributions for one machine."
"The solution supports a lot of protocols."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional are the separate module for scripting, execution analysis, and integration with a lot of new things pipeline areas. They keep updating their releases. Recently, they have released different versions, such as the professional and enterprise. They're coming up with new features which are good."
"LoadRunner is a very sophisticated tool, and I can use many languages. For example, I can use Java. I can use C++. I can test the Internet of Things, FTP, mail, and Active Directory. It is very useful."
"The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"There are various languages that they allow those programs to be written in, whether you want to use Java or something else."
"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."
"The cost of the solution is high and can be improved."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise needs to add more features for Citrix performance-based applications testing. This was one of the challenges we observed. Additionally, we experienced some APIs challenges."
"On the newer versions, I think the bleeding edge is still being worked on."
"The price of this solution could be less expensive. However, this category of solutions is expensive."
"The process of upgrading LoadRunner can be difficult and time-consuming."
"Sometimes, the code is not generated when we record the scripts in the backend."
"Lacks the option of carrying out transaction comparisons."
"It's not that popular on the cloud."
"The solution must be more user-friendly."
"The tool needs to work on capture script feature."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved."
"The solution lacks some form of integration."
"I would like the solution to include monitoring capacity."
"The pricing model, selling model, and business model need to be adjusted. For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad, Apache JMeter and OpenText ALM / Quality Center, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter, IBM Rational Performance Tester and Tricentis Tosca. See our OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.