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

Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing vs OpenText LoadRunner Professional comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Str...
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
21st
Average Rating
9.0
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 Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing is 0.4%, up from 0.3% 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

reviewer1631949 - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly, cheap, and quick to set up
It's actually quite easy to set it up. You can change your upgrade plan at any time. The pricing is reasonable. The support was also very good. They are great at helping you set it up. Overall, it's user-friendly. I like that you can also use different servers, which I used in Europe or in different contexts. The reporting is okay. I can get notifications via email, which is nice. Everything is immediate and in real-time.
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

"The pricing is reasonable."
"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 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."
"Graph monitoring is a valuable feature."
"It has good protocol coverage."
"The implementation was very straightforward and not an issue."
"My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
 

Cons

"A lot of time you start the stress testing, and you sign the log in again, and I want to get rid of that. It's just not clear to me how to do it yet."
"The only scenario we see a complexity is when we have single-page applications where JavaScript is talking to the server and coming back. That's the only scenario where we find some difficulties."
"There is room for improvement of the pilot processing, the dump analysis, and forwarding results based on the dump analysis. We have a generator, root controller, different agents, and an analyzer, so all of these are very important when it comes to LoadRunner."
"I would like the solution to include monitoring capacity."
"Sometimes when we were migrating from one version to another, some of our scripts started failing."
"Instead of having too many graphs and tabs, use the analysis section to get a more simplified defect analysis."
"The solution uses a lot of memory and then it dies. It's difficult to work with the solution sometimes when you run a scenario it dies. They need to make the solution lighter somehow."
"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."
"You should be able to use LoadRunner as a single platform. You should be able to have browser based access. You should be able to run enterprise tests."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"You can buy plans that range from free to $500 a month."
"It is a high-cost investment, particularly for companies with small budgets or limited testing needs."
"It is competing with other products that may cost significantly less or may be available as open-source. Because of that it is relatively expensive."
"I would rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten."
"The pricing model, especially when involving partners, could use some improvement."
"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."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low and ten is a high price, I rate the solution a five."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of users."
"It is reasonable. We pay the cost, but we have everything. We have a big set of licenses for SAP and other applications. We have all kinds of licenses."
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
No data available
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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

LoadView Stress Testing
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Citrix, Aflac, Xerox, American InterContinental University, UMASS, ITT Technical Institute, Roanoke College
JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Find out what your peers are saying about Dotcom-Monitor LoadView Stress Testing vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.