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

OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs Spirent Avalanche comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText LoadRunner Profess...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
80
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (3rd)
Spirent Avalanche
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
17th
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is 12.5%, down from 15.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Spirent Avalanche is 1.0%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
reviewer1153692 - PeerSpot reviewer
Quality traffic testing and is reasonably priced
I find network traffic testing the most valuable feature The solution could improve by increasing the Gbps speeds and by having better support for storage. I have been using the solution for one and a half years. The price of the solution is reasonable. I rate Spirent Avalanche a nine out of…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"LoadRunner Professional allowed us to load test potential new payroll solutions that would be implemented throughout the entire organization so that we knew which was best suited to performing well under pressure."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"The solution is quite stable."
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"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."
"There are various languages that they allow those programs to be written in, whether you want to use Java or something else."
"The load testing, reporting, and scripting features are all valuable features."
"The most valuable feature depends on what we're doing at the time. In the past, the greatest feature was the ability to record and play back to produce a script. Another great feature is that we can monitor the system. They also support many protocols to perform load testing."
"I find network traffic testing the most valuable feature."
 

Cons

"The monitoring technology in LoadRunner could be improved. It depends on another tool called SiteScope, but they only took a part of the features of SiteScope. They need to improve on that."
"Sometimes when we were migrating from one version to another, some of our scripts started failing."
"We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly."
"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."
"We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market."
"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."
"If the support of the protocols was the same throughout the other protocols and it was there evenly, then I would rate the product higher."
"The solution could improve by increasing the Gbps speeds and by having better support for storage."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"LoadRunner is more expensive than some competing products."
"The licensing model is complex. You have to pick up the protocol and the number of concurrent users, and then select the level of concurrent users. For example, there would be one price for 100 to 500 users and another for 500 to 2000 users. If you choose two protocols, then you will have to pay twice the amount depending on the number of concurrent users."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of users."
"The price is a bit on the high side, but it is still affordable."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low and ten is a high price, I rate the solution a five."
"LoadRunner Professional's licensing costs are on the higher side, apart from the Community Edition."
"The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user."
"The price of the solution is reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 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
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
24%
Computer Software Company
21%
Media Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

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 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 '...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
Avalanche
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
ditno
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: December 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.