OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Reviews

It's the most flexible and best solution for our people who are both offshore and onshore because of the reporting capabilities. When we hire new employees, we look for people who have used this tool for testing experience.

It's allowed us to really focus on load testing and to get some results that we've reported to our business managers.

Another thing we really like is that it takes advantage of our monitoring tools when we're performance testing. They work well together.

The migration from LoadRunner to Performance Center was not as smooth as I would have liked. Some of it was not the tool but us, but it still could have been smoother and taken a little bit less time.

We started off with LoadRunner and we've been using that for probably a year, and then we just recently converted over to the Performance Center, which is their staff solution, in the last year.

We've had no issues with deployment, other than the initial migration.

It's stable now.

For situations in which we've had to scale up a little bit, they've been there to help us. We didn't have any trouble scaling.

I have not been as impressed as with their other products. They do respond, they do have the knowledge to do this but it hasn't been the same as what I've seen with other products. A little more challenging.

We were challenged in out setup, making it more complex, because we didn't us HP cloud and were using AWS instead. Some of the connections weren't set up properly.

Make sure you figure out what you want before you buy. Determine how many and what types of licenses you need.

Although there may be other products out there that do an amazing job, they don't necessarily have the skill set in the industry that makes it worth me going out there and looking at them.

During implementation, make sure you're talking about a cloud solution. You may be implementing in multiple areas, so planning is very important.

The most valuable features to us are--

• Ease of uploading the scripts, and
• Script maintenance.

• Multiple users from different locations can login.
• We can view tests at run time, which has helped us to execute tests from different time zones.

Sometimes the Book Time Slot option hangs if I cancel any test or time slot. Also, if the results file gets corrupted, then we need to contact HP to get the raw results.

• Standalone PC – six years
• SaaS PC – two years

We encountered no issues when deploying.

We've had no issues with stability.

We've scaled without issue.

Customer service is excellent.

Technical support is excellent.

I have used Borland SilkTest, JMeter and LoadUI. JMeter and LoadUI have limitations in terms of the protocols. SilkTest is not as user friendly as Performance Center.

It was not complex, but I needed to consult HP support a couple of times for clarification and for help in registering the load injectors.

We did it in-house.

If the organization is going to test multiple protocols like Ajax, TruClient, Citrix, and SAP frequently, then there is definitely a high ROI in using this tool. If it's only the HTTP protocol being used, then other less expensive tools will be sufficient.

It is quite expensive.

It helps us to test the performance of our applications at load, and what sets it apart is the number of types of applications that it covers from web to back office, and even mobile. Makes multiple protocols available to us.

It gives us advanced reporting. Allows us to compare performance as we make application changes, and scale to the level that we need as a large organization.

I'd like to see feedback from production, to see what scenarios to run, and even better integrations into some other products such as AppDynamics.

I've been using LoadRunner for some 15 to 18 years personally, but at the company I'm at, for about six months.

Yes, I would say it is stable. We haven't had a problem with stability.

I believe it will meet our needs into the future. We heard today that you can scale up to 2,000,000 users even with the sister product, which is StormRunner. We haven't had any issues with scalability.

We use a third-party for tech support and they do a great job.

Straightforward. Very easy to do.

I think it's the best product out there for performance and load testing.

Using multiple controllers and using random LG’s for different executions with IP spoofing really helps to simulate realistic scenarios.

Previously, we had different physical machines for each controller, and then we shifted to Performance Center. It allows users to log into a single instance and to manage all other controllers from there.

I think Stormrunner is the best example of a cloud based solution, so it may be that Performance Center can have a better, richer, and faster UI.

I've used it for one year.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

4.5/5

4.5/5

I started with HP products.

It was a bit complex in terms of administration but we got help from technical people.

I was not completely involved in implementation, so I don’t have much information on this.

I think HP has a straightforward approach.

Performance Center allows multiple users to access and work on a project simultaneously. 

Additionally, it keeps a run log and allows for script and scenario versioning. 

I also like the scheduling feature that allows us to manage multiple projects using the same controller and load generators.

I am a performance tester, and I need a product that can maintain my scripts, scenarios, monitors and run logs. Performance Center is my product of choice.

Just recently, I used the command line feature to create scripts that can be used across multiple environments. That feature saved me a great deal of time --thousands in man hours over the last year.

The trending reports do not always work as I would expect them to. I have had issues with transaction times being pulled in correctly. 

Additionally, trending a test run can take over 30 minutes when it should take five.

I've used it for five years.

Performance Center requires regular maintenance in order to remain stabl

No

The company I work for provides Performance Center support.  Orasi has won several awards for their HP support.  I use Orasi support when ever I require customer service for an HP product.  I have never had an opportunity to use HP customer service.

I have had the opportunity to use two other products briefly. Unfortunately, I did not have enough experience to speak to this with any authority.

I was not involved in the deployment of any of the instances of Performance Center that I have used. However, I have been involved in three different upgrades for three different clients. 

When Performance Center is managed properly with proper maintenance, there were no issues with upgrades. I have seen instances of script corruption, user access difficulties and project corruption. 

It is necessary to have an experienced Performance Center administrator providing regular maintenance.

Orasi Software does Performance Center implementation. I am not a member of that team. I have been on projects where Performance Center was implemented by the client and then Orasi was called to correct any issues. 

Again, I cannot stress enough how important it is to have an experienced administrator. It may cost more initially but it will save time and money later.

The return on investment is immeasurable. One of my first clients was an entertainment company that called us after their production site had gone down for a day. The reservation system was down for over six hours. They estimated they had lost in excess of three million dollars an hour. 

Regular performance testing prevents such occurrences. Needless to say they have not been down since.

The price tag on Performance Center is a large one. It can be daunting. There are so many options now with Cloud Controllers, using Cloud Load Generators, purchasing VUser licenses by the day or even hour. Additionally, Performance Center in the cloud relieves you of the essential maintenance and administration requirements.

I was trained on HP LoadRunner and then Performance Center.  I was not involved in any evaluation process.

Performance Center is not difficult to pick up for a beginner. When I was first introduced to Performance Center, I had just started my career as a performance test engineer. It is not completely intuitive though. I believe there are some extraneous requirements. As I mentioned before an experience administrator is recommended.

The command line feature allows you to set a parameter value at the scenario level. It can be applied to all scripts in a scenario. This feature has saved me a great deal of time.

We use LoadRunner for performance testing.

This is a product that has a lot of capabilities and is the most mature tool of its kind in the market.

In the DevOps model, performance testing has become a bottleneck. This is because, after the completion of a sprint, people are in a hurry to send it to production but it first needs performance testing. Whenever there is a code change, it takes a lot of time to rescript and debug the script.

The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved. Basically, it is too resource-intensive.

Performance testing needs to be better integrated into an agile framework.

There should be a way of automatically increasing the load generators on the cloud, without specifically having to spin up the agent and configure it. There is a third-party tool that does this. 

I have been using LoadRunner Enterprise for nine years.

Although it is stable, the whole performance testing process becomes very slow because of its complex scripting and having to rework the scripts. Ultimately, this will become obsolete if it is not improved.

LoadRunner is a scalable product. We have a team of four or five people who use it.

The technical support is very bad. It seems that people will ask a lot of unnecessary questions just to bide the time. We are very frustrated with the support team.

This is the only tool that I have used for performance testing. It is the tool that I use most of the time in my role.

The initial setup is fine. Deploying LoadRunner is quick but to set up the performance testing itself takes a lot of time.

When it comes to organization, people compare automation testing with performance testing. Automation testing is something that is very easily integrated within an agile and faster delivery framework. The scripting in automation testing is robust because it is GUI-based. When it comes to performance testing, it is request-response-based and the scripts are not very robust in some of the application platforms. Because of that, people feel that performance testing is a bottleneck and it takes a lot of time.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

It supports an extensive portfolio of protocols. It supports everything from the very basic web HTTP, which is kind of the bread and butter of load performance testing tools, to Citrix, Oracle, and even some Real X, and others. The breadth of the product is very valuable.

It is a very powerful tool. They pitch it as the market leader and it kind of is. It's that big “one-tool-fits-all” kind of option. You don't need to go and get several tools, each of which supports an individual kind of protocol. You can do pretty much everything on the entire stack with one tool. That makes it good.

It centralized our ability to offer a performance engineering service. We’ve been up as a one-stop shop for projects and programs to come in. We know what tools we’re going to use. Rather than custom fitting something for each project, we can say, “This is what we're going to recommend."

I'd like to see a more shared data repository. They have their costs up. I think they could expand it out a bit more so we could have it running across synthetic users and protocol types.

The stability is very good. A couple years ago, you might have been able to point a finger at HPE and say maybe they weren't doing enough with the product; so it was probably unstable. As it is, over the last couple of years, they've innovated a bit more. There's been a bit more change without losing the core stability.

The scalability is good. We got Performance Center, which is kind of the enterprise version of LoadRunner. That solved a number of pinch points for us by enabling us to run multiple performance engineering programs at once; so that is really good.

Technical support is really good. I’ve had stuff bounced around the world to have problems solved.

We were previously using LoadRunner and we moved to Performance Center. Under the covers, they are very much the same, but Performance Center just has a lot more flexibility from a licensing perspective and from a setup and management perspective. It was kind of a natural evolution.

The initial setup was really reasonably straightforward. We pretty much just followed the installation guide.

We also considered Microsoft. We chose HPE because of its breadth of capability.

When we selected a vendor, it was a trade-off between having the best in class and the price. It needs to be cheap and we need to get along with them.

Whether I would advise colleagues to choose this solution is entirely situationally dependent. It fits our needs and our project portfolio, but that doesn't mean that it will meet everyone else's needs.

• Web interface, which can be used by multiple users from multiple locations
• Groups distribution
• Good for batch and timely executions
• Results in easier readable format
• Single license can be used optimally in different time zones for 300% ROI
• Multiple projects execution
• Time slot bookings for controller
• Optimal use of Load generator/injectors

Maximum utilization of controller as we operate from India, UK and US in different time zones.

Deletion of collating test results by admin access only.

6 years

no

no

no

8/10

9/10

only HP loadrunner

complex

HP vendor

200%

Little expensive

no

no