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

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise vs OpenText Silk Performer comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.2
Number of Reviews
83
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (5th)
OpenText Silk Performer
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
16th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is 6.2%, down from 9.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Performer is 1.1%, down from 2.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

VictorHorescu - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to test almost every tool in the companies I enter and performs well in a distributed environment
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. In real time, when they ask for 5,000 or 10,000 concurrent users, I have to provision a lot of virtual machines to define this load. Then there are situations with certain platforms, especially document management platforms, where the technology is so weird that normal LoadRunner protocols cannot detect it. So, in that case, I have to use that special TruClient protocol. I have to use the TruClient protocol, which actually clicks on the object. Despite the SQL technology, I can still create a script and test for performance. So what I would appreciate a lot is if this protocol would require less resources on a normal virtual machine. I can use fewer concurrent users with TruClient protocols as opposed to almost one hundred with HTTP/HTML. As opposed to many more with HTTP/HTML from, let's say, JMeter. So, optimization at that level for resource consumption by OpenText would be much appreciated.
SR
Scripting and basic test executions are good features; configuring the workload for tests is easy
In terms of areas of improvement, I would say the Silk Performance Explorer tool, which is used for monitoring and analysis, can be improved because that's where we spend most of our time when we're analyzing the test data. Any enhancements that can be provided in the monitoring sphere would be useful. When you have a large amount of data the tool struggles with it and will sometimes crash, or there may be issues with too many metrics being collected when running a test. The interface for the scripting could be more feature-rich. Integration with tools like Prometheus or Grafana where we can visualize the data would be great. As things stand, we have to use one monitoring tool to visualize data and another for visualizing the test metrics. Integration would enable us to see the metrics from Silk and correlate that with the metrics from other servers or other processes we're monitoring. It would save having to look at Silk data and server metrics separately. It's the way things are going with newer tools. I think the solution is being phased out by Micro Focus and their emphasis is focused more on LoadRunner. We haven't seen much development in the last few years.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We have Performance Center as a platform to share with others that don't do performance testing full-time, so that they in an agile fashion, on demand can go ahead and get real issue-finding testing done."
"This is a product that has a lot of capabilities and is the most mature tool of its kind in the market."
"With LoadRunner Enterprise, doing various types of performance testing, load testing, and automation testing has been very helpful for some of the teams."
"Provides the performance of load test applications and reliably on good reporting."
"It has offered me some reliability against other products, like JMeter or some other tools."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to use and has flexibility that allows it to be used on a variety of applications."
"For me, the test coverage and the performance and load testing aspects are valuable."
"The most beneficial features of the solution are flexibility and versatility in their performance."
"A good monitoring tool, simple to script and easy to configure."
 

Cons

"The debugging feature needs to include graphs."
"They had wanted to change the GUI to improve the look and feel. However, since that time, we see a lot of hanging issues."
"Dashboard creation should be implemented, so we can get the results in a desired format."
"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."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's reporting should be quicker, easier, and more flexible."
"The cost of the solution is high and can be improved."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, I need to spend a lot of time training people, while on other low-code or no-code platforms, I need not invest that much time."
"I believe the data that demonstrates the automated correlations should be corrected."
"If you have a large amount of data, the solution can struggle."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool is very expensive."
"We got a very good deal. We are happy with that. We have 5,000 licenses."
"We purchased the license via SAP."
"The price is a bit too high."
"We got an 80 percent discount for the product. It was cost-effective, but licenses tend to get expensive."
"I rate the product's pricing a three out of ten."
"The solution should decrease its price."
"The price is really steep. It's an enterprise-level tool."
Information not available
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.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
17%
Government
8%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
Now that LoadRunner integrates with Dynatrace and other monitoring tools, it simplifies the process of integration into a company, taking merely five minutes to set up. This ease of integration a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
In 2019, I was dealing with the costs of LoadRunner. While I don't remember the exact figures, JMeter being free and RPT being cheaper makes them attractive. The high cost of LoadRunner, in contras...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
While I don't see any issues with LoadRunner's functionality, the cost of the tool is a major factor. Many of my customers have had to switch to different tools due to the cost of LoadRunner, despi...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, Micro Focus Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
Micro Focus Silk Performer, Silk Performer
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
University of Colorado, Medidata, Monash University
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Load Testing Tools. Updated: November 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.