OpenText LoadRunner Cloud Reviews

We've seen in the past where we have customers that use other performance testing products such as LoadRunner and Performance Center that they often have the need to do spike testing. Their testing for 1,000 virtual users running at the same time but before the application goes into production or before a big event, they need to scale up to 10,000, 20,000, 50,000, and so forth. We want to make sure that they can test to those specific limits and StormRunner allows us to do that.

I think the biggest issues that I've seen, and this is a personal view of mine, is that most of the HPE products have a common look and feel to them. I'd really like to see it be a little more customizable to a use and user standpoint. For example. I happen to be colors blind, so I'd like to see more vivid colors on the UI, and things like that. It would make it a little more flexible from the customer standpoint.

I was formally an HP employee, so I've used the HP products in the past. I also was a former Mercury Interactive employee which was acquired by HP.

It's been extremely scalable as far as the testing that we've done with our customers. They've all been really satisfied with the scalability of the HPE products.

We've gone through the standard customer support and it’s been good. It's not quite to the level that an R&D would be, because they really get really under the covers to fix things.

It really doesn't need to be as flexible as some other solutions because it's right out of the box, it's relatively easy to use. You open up, you create a test in ten minutes and then you're able to run it.

JMeter script integration. This integration feature is a good approach provided by HPE. Sometimes, we need to run scripts developed in an open source tool like JMeter. Instead of spending time on creating new scripts, the scripts developed in JMeter can be uploaded and based on the protocol license because it is a DEV user protocol, it provides a valuable feature when integrated with StormRunner.

Monitoring and sample access to servers needs to be provided, so that we can explore this and keep up-to-date.

The licensed version / free edition needs to be configured with SiteScope or AppDynamics, which many customers might not have. The LoadRunner feature of Windows Resource Monitor should come in handy in such scenarios. It is not only for Windows-based monitoring but also for UNIX-based monitoring. Dependency on the other tools or HP tools (SiteScope) would be reduced.

It needs to be more mature.

The client breakdown is a separate report and is not part of the existing load test report. The client breakdown is basically the response time observed from different browsers. We need to take a snapshot and place it in the load test report and that is not available when the load test report is generated from StormRunner.

Also, for the VuGen Web protocol, it supports only 12.50 and above, which is tough and compatibility is lost.

More than a year and half

I did not encounter any issues during deployment, but there are not enough tutorials available for the TruClient protocol and also on the reporting side.

I have worked extensively on the various module supported by STRL2.1v and provided my suggestions/improvements/recommendation to the HP R&D Team

Good

The level of customer service / technical support is satisfactory, with a few times good.

For example, when trying to learn the monitoring feature of StormRunner, I requested access to the Web Tours application that is installed on the server so I could explore that feature in depth. However, access was denied (monitoring-only access was provided). My question was: When both the application and the tool belong to HPE, why was access denied?

The end user needs to have strong skills in any of the load testing tools, specifically if they already have experience with LoadRunner.

It's the license and structure because it's so dynamic. Virtual user hours is much more dynamic than virtual user days, and even more dynamic than static licenses. I did a test a short time ago where we could keep the test to half an hour so we could really optimize this virtual user hour. That was wonderful.

It's used to improve our customers, but we don't use it in-house.

I'm a consultant and this was used for a small project. My customer bought around five consulting days from me. We ran into some undocumented limits around the number of concurrent users. It was really just set up to keep the guys out that wanted to do denial of service using the demo account. It was not clear that this was the limit it would hit. That's expensive for a company. Out of five days, maybe half a day. That's 20% of the budget went into trying to run a test. The test fails, contact support, ask what's going on. Make them move the limit and then re-run. That was bad. It should just be upfront - these limits exists, be sure before you start that you don't want to move them.

Quite good.

I trust it. I haven't tried it with thousands of virtual users. As true client, yes of course. We had arl 6000 true client users. That's 60 gigabyte memory. It's not a PC, so it's not large.

Quite responsive.

We were previously using LoadRunner for our customer, but we needed something that could be used in the cloud. I advised the customer to buy StormRunner Load as given the time frame it was clear from the beginning that we needed to use the true client scripts. We didn't want to set up the memory foot print for them so we had to go to cloud.

It was difficult because the Amazon stuff didn't work. I don't like to use Microsoft stuff. I was forced to put it onto Azure Cloud because that was the one that just worked out of the box. The Amazon launching died somewhere in the process. There was another error there as well.

I'm an HPE partner. I don't look anywhere else.

For all the in house stuff where we run into firewalls, it just gets bad. For public websites, it's perfect.

The flexibility makes it a viable solution.

The platform is easy to use for uploading and backing up scripts.

I had to do overload testing on our homepage. I couldn’t use our regular tools because I wanted to simulate a real scenario and StormRunner Load does this. It enabled us to upload the scripts into the cloud and gave me unlimited resources.

The monitoring abilities were lacking. The reporting didn’t present the information in a clear manner for me. It took me four days to understand why I couldn’t upload the scripts from my computer to the cloud, and I discovered I was missing an important feature that StormRunner Load is missing, called Corver, and this converts the script for the tests.

I used it once in a testing session and have been using it for one month in a live environment.

No issues encountered.

There was a bug and we opened a ticket with HP, and it was fixed after a few days.

No issues encountered.

It was great, there was an issue and I worked with Kim from HP who was great.

It was great.

No previous solution used.

It was straightforward, we just needed to register on the site. In comparison to other HP products, it was very user-friendly.

We did it in-house.

I have been using LoadRunner Cloud for performance testing.

LoadRunner Cloud allows us to do performance testing without having to create our own physical infrastructure and set up a load generator. Normally, these steps would be required.

The most valuable feature is that you can create an infrastructure on-demand and do performance testing with it. There is no need to create physical infrastructure.

Using this solution does not require the use of a load generator.

Improvements to the reporting would be good.

Technical support can be improved.

I have used LoadRunner Cloud in only one project so far, for a period of about three months.

I have found this to be a very stable product.

I only needed to simulate 40,000 users for my project but I understand that it will work for up to 2,000,000 users. That is huge and I can say that scalability is very good.

This vendor, Micro Focus, is not very good at technical support.

I have used some open-source tools and LoadRunner Cloud is more straightforward to use.

The initial setup is normal and I have not found any complexity with it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The most valuable feature is the ability to configure browser settings for different operating systems and on different versions without the need to install every single version on each machine and to manage them. This is the most useful feature that I'm interested in.

I'm also interested in mobile center services related to StormRunner functions because we are going to determine which will be the best solution for developing mobile testing. And we are interested in outsourcing mobile testing, so this kind of environment will be useful as we are not engaged in the configuration of infrastructure. Also, I think it will be useful because Storm Runner functionality does not need specific configuration because the configuration basis is in the UFT and the UFT can be in our environment. We do a lot of configuration because we develop a custom framework related to UFT. So, I appreciate that configuration can be managed by us, while the browser can be released on the remit version.

I'd like to see more ability to dive more deeply into the configuration.

I think the product is still immature because we have some problem reaching the mobile center connection related to a proper configuration on our machine. In fact, we are in touch with the R&D team to fix the configuration for our environment. I also think that it will be useful to have an object recognition tool because the specific configuration on the browsers are to be managed so as to fix our specific test. I need to recognize what was the configuration on the remit browser and I need a tool to analyze the impact of the browser configuration on the test.

I think the scalability is fine with this kind of solution because I have no problem with how many machines will be available to run the test; it's a matter of the cloud provisioning. It will be useful to run the tests in multiple environments in parallel. That will be a good tool for us when we have to make tests with a shortage of time.

I have not used technical support recently. HPE support is always prompt to solve the issues. That is the main thing I appreciate regarding support.

Flexibility and speed to provision and start large (high concurrency) performance testing cycles.

This software solution has allowed us to run larger, high concurrency performance testing cycles in a very repetitive manner…a requirement for validating our application solutions and supporting infrastructure for customer facing web apps.

Out of the box reporting could be improved.

We have been using the solution for 9 months.

Some issues with UI but HP did provide high levels of support and the issue(s) were quickly fixed (within 3 days of initial product usage).

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

Customer service was an 8/10.

Technical support 9/10.

Utilized a different HP toolset (ALM/PC) for performance testing. SRL provided a better solution from a pricing and scaling perspective.

Initial setup was straightforward…cloud based solution with a simple, flexible UI.

Vendor team…expertise (10).

Looked briefly at Neotys…actively doing a POC of CloudTest for comparison purposes.

You need to effectively plan anticipated usage of the toolset. This will enable you to purchase the appropriate amount of Vusers hours for your contractual period (in our case this was 12 months).

It's very valuable because with StormRunner we can validate the capacity of our systems. Specifically, we use it for one system that is from two years ago. We have an increment of the users, about 300% more, so we need to assure that the quality of the service keeps up with the users. StormRunner helps us to validate that.

Right now, we are just starting to use it. I don't have any comments on that.

Less than a year.

Yes, it's stable. We don't have any issue right now with the performance or anything like that.

It's very flexible. We can have load testing for 100 users, maybe 1,000 or even more, so yes, no problem with that.

It's very good. We also have support from our partner, Micro Focus, so it's basically good on that.

No, it was straightforward. It was very easy to implement and to have a load test.