Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cavisson NetStorm vs OpenText LoadRunner Professional comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Cavisson NetStorm
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
18th
Average Rating
9.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText LoadRunner Profess...
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
80
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Cavisson NetStorm is 0.3%, down from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is 11.4%, down from 15.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1329360 - PeerSpot reviewer
Has monitoring capabilities integrated into it to see the performance of components while the test is in the running phase
NetStorm can generate high load with a single machine. Its Runlogic feature is very useful to send load to cover each and every flow of the application. NetStorm gives the feasibility of generating load with multiple load arrival models helping components to be tested based on its usage. NetStorm has monitoring capabilities integrated into it to see the performance of components while the test is in the running phase. One more great functionality is the ability to control the load runtime by increasing or decreasing the virtual users or pausing the users to keep on repeating the transactions without exiting.
HelenSague - PeerSpot reviewer
A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications
I do not have any big challenges with LoadRunner. I only have some issues with load generators. It is a very common issue, and I hope it will be resolved in the latest release. For example, when we start to run our tests, users get the message that the load generator exceeded 80% of the CPU utilization. Even when the number of users is less, we get these messages. I am trying to resolve it, but it is not going. It is annoying. It is not a failure, but I hope that it will be resolved. IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Designs dynamic scripts and scenarios, as per our requirements, which is one the most important feature available in NetStorm. It helps us to do performance testing of our application in a periodic way."
"NetStorm can generate high load with a single machine. Its Runlogic feature is very useful to send load to cover each and every flow of the application. NetStorm gives the feasibility of generating load with multiple load arrival models helping components to be tested based on its usage."
"This tool helps to focus on real-time transactions that occur at a very high rate."
"I am impressed with the tool's correlation function."
"I like LoadRunner's ability to use multiple protocols. That's one of the greatest features along with the ability to test service calls between the app and server."
"It has good protocol coverage."
"The initial setup and installation of the software were very easy and straightforward."
"I like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good."
"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."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
 

Cons

"Need to add or support some more APIs in the Script Manager window."
"The user interface had to be improved for the product. Its user interface should be made simple and easy to customize as per user needs."
"In the next release, we are looking for a JS instrumentation feature that would be helpful in identifying client-side issues at an early stage, or during testing."
"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional can improve the implementation of digital areas, such as digital testing, UI and native application, and native mobile applications."
"In terms of resource management, you need a lot of high capacity boxes if you need to generate a load of 1,000 or 2,000 users."
"We still have some issues with integration with things like SiteScope which, obviously, being another HPE product should be very straightforward, but there are always issues around that."
"I would like the solution to include monitoring capacity."
"The flexibility could be improved."
"I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support."
"I also use the TrueClient feature for browser-based testing. I found the TrueClient feature to be a bit difficult to use and not very user-friendly for automating scripts."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"NetStorm is priced well when compared to many well-known tools."
"It is a high-cost investment, particularly for companies with small budgets or limited testing needs."
"When you compare the cost of other tools such as NeoLoad and LoadNinja, the cost of LoadRunner is on the expensive side. As a result, we are currently considering going with NeoLoad."
"The solution's pricing is expensive."
"The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user."
"I would rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten."
"The price is a bit on the high side, but it is still affordable."
"The licensing is on a yearly basis and is relatively expensive."
"There is an annual license required to use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional. There are not any additional costs other than the licensing fees to use it."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Apr 13, 2014
LoadRunner vs NeoLoad
The six phases of an IT project Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent (the performance tester) Praise and rewards for the incompetent non-participants This article has been put together as part of an evaluation of the performance test tools NeoLoad and…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Retailer
24%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
When designing a workload model offers a good range of possibilities for creating goal-oriented scenarios, which helps us understand and meet SLAs.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
Technical support needs to be faster, and the pricing should be more competitive. The virtual table server feature should be reintroduced. Some AI capabilities should be added. There should be an '...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Oracle, Macy's, Redbox, art.com, Pronto Networks, A10 Networks, Renesas, San Jose Medical Group
JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Find out what your peers are saying about Cavisson NetStorm vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.