We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise and Visual Studio Test Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."It offers easy integration with third-party tools like Dynatrace, Splunk, etc."
"This is a product that has a lot of capabilities and is the most mature tool of its kind in the market."
"It is pretty easy to do test execution and results analysis. When it comes to scenario settings, LoadRunner Enterprise has an extra edge over other testing tools in the industry. The scenario setup is easy, and in terms of execution, we have a clear idea of what is happening"
"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."
"The solution supports a number of protocols."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly."
"For me, LoadRunner stands out, especially with its reporting capabilities, the graphs that can be generated, and the unique feature of measuring our application's response alongside our infrastructure metrics, such as CPU, memory, or disk usage, all presented in graph form. This is something other applications struggle to match."
"It is also good for reporting purposes, which would be most familiar for QC and UFT users."
"Visual Studio Test Pro is super helpful for my Microsoft app work."
"You can easily write code, test, and deploy within the same environment. It is a mature tool. It regularly receives new updates and versions. In my opinion, it's one of the best products by Microsoft for developers."
"It is a good and user-friendly tool."
"User-friendly ID and direct integration with GitHub are the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Visual Studio Test Professional is its ease of use."
"The setup is easy and straightforward."
"We are satisfied with technical support. Communicating with them is very simple. We also have a lot of online resources to check and to study and to train our team with. The documentation is very clear and readily available."
"The solution is very stable; there's nothing in relation to stability to complain about."
"The installation has not been straightforward, and we have had so many problems. We have had to re-install, try to install on a different machine, etc. We have not been able to launch the LRE server itself yet."
"The process of upgrading LoadRunner can be difficult and time-consuming."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's reporting should be quicker, easier, and more flexible."
"Currently, when we try open LRE we encounter cookie banner issues. However, I'm not sure if it is within the enterprise solution or with the vendors."
"The reporting has room for improvement."
"Canned reports are always a challenge and a question with customers because customers want to see sexy reports."
"It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems."
"I'd rate the scalability a six out of ten. The main reason is that it's a very expensive application. Other companies might not be able to afford it. For example, if we need to test an application with 10,000 concurrent users, the license can cost a lot of money. That's where OpenText tools shoot themselves in the foot compared to other tools. Because of the price, many companies, like one I used to work for, decided not to renew their licenses and switched to open-source testing tools."
"Visual Studio Test Professional needs to improve its stability."
"The documentation is limited."
"It is hard to learn, and you need to invest time to understand it."
"The solution's deployment is not very easy and should be made easier."
"The solution's documentation could be improved for beginners."
"I would appreciate some enhancements in the interface, maybe adding more color options."
"Sometimes, the solution hangs, so its performance could be improved."
"There are too many features with the product and I would like there to be less."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 48 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. 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 Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and OpenText UFT One, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and OpenText LoadRunner Professional.
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.