OpenText LoadRunner Cloud Reviews

It's in the cloud. Everything goes in the cloud. We needed something that's easy to set up in the cloud so we can use it directly there.

It's very easy to set up a load test, to start it and end it. It is valuable that it is very easy to use.

We are not benefitting a lot at this time because it has its bad parts.

It needs more features; a lot more features. Everything that's in LoadRunner Analysis should be built up in StormRunner; so we can use everything, every functionality and every feature all together.

It's stable. It's not perfect, but it's stable.

It is not really scalable.

We didn't use it that much. It was a demo session set up especially for us.

It's very east to set up. I did it directly myself just once.

We compared it to LoadRunner and Performance Center because we use that currently for load and performance tests. We cannot use this solution in the cloud. StormRunner is very rudimentary at this time, but it's a great concept. We hope that it will be thrilling.

We chose StormRunner because of the cloud. That's a great part of it.

Wait with StormRunner.

• The fact that you don't have to worry about the infrastructure setup.
• The fact that 1000's of virtual users can log on to the cloud without having to set up.
• Provides a solution for new or existing customers.
• Alternative to LoadRunner, for new or existing clients with agile.

At the moment, its a bit early for us to tell - does everything we need it to. HP is looking to expand to see what exactly it can be used for.

We did a trial since it was launched.

No issues with deployment.

No issues with stability.

We were only running a small set of numbers, but no issues.

It's not something we've really had to worry about - we were able to crack it open and begin.

The help files on the web are good and the video links/ guides are good.

We use LoadRunner extensively for Performance testing.

Setup was straightforward.

In-house implementation.

I can't calculate the ROI right now but I would assume a lot considering savings on infrastructure cost and license costs. It will still take some time to run a performance test but setup saves a lot of time.

We evaluate a lot of testing tools. NeoLoad, LoadRunner, we prefer HP.

If you're looking at an application that can be seen on the WAN and using agile approach, then its a tool that should be recommended and used.

• The ability to spin upload really fast.
• The ability to create a script easily against an application.
• The ability to provision the load so it comes from multiple geographies across the world. 

The documentation could absolutely be improved and scripts. For example, during a performance test, the monitoring graph is not very clear as to what its representing. I wasn’t sure what the graphs represented so my guess is a lot of customers feel the same way.

One month - were doing a trial.

No issues.

No, the only thing I remember seeing as a “bug” when you hover your mouse over the graph, it will jumps around and doesn’t follow the mouse movement, other than that I don’t remember seeing anything from a stability perspective.

No, but haven’t really scaled it yet.

That's where the documentation could be really helpful, apparently I had an older version on my machine, which was creating conflict. If everything had gone as supposed to would have been simple but the documentation could have better and clearer.

Customers should understand the amount of time it takes to build a script - benefit of StormRunner as opposed to other cloud based Load testing tools is the ease of scripting. End users should understand the impact of the time it takes to build scripts. If StormRunner can save you 50% of your scripting, you need to understand how that translates into value. Expertise of StormRunner and LoadRunner includes these elements.

This solution is SaaS based so we can utilize cloud technology, which is less time consuming and saves a lot of of money.

Sometimes, you are utilizing one of the low generators, then all of a sudden if you discontinue from one project, it actually deletes the entire low generator. You have to go through all the setup again. This kind of problem is on and off. It comes and goes.

We have just been using it for about two months now.

This is a new product, so there are a couple of flaws, sometimes things act up weirdly. We reach out to the support group, they solve the issues. It's an ongoing process. We understand that.

Since this is a new solution, they need to improve the support. They also have some lack of expertise. We understand that.

It is complex. You need to convince the leadership and the IT security team. You need to solve all these issues. There are a lot of things that you have to go through.

We chose this one because of the name. It's established, the last decade. We used to be with this company. Micro Focus is more than seven or eight years, we're good with them, they are good with us.

It's a new product and we are facing some issues. We believe, they are going to work out at their end. They are going make it work and fix everything, whatever the flaws are now.

Overall, we are using this to save money and utilize the cloud technology.

• Ability to get started on the fly
• Reusability of existing HTTP/HTML scripts

I have been able to run several tests from outside the corporate LAN, which in the past used to be an infrastructure nightmare as it required opening up ports, disabling firewalls, etc.

It needs the ability to execute other protocols, especially the TruClient for Firefox without having to convert them.

We've used it for over a year.

There have been no issues with the deployment.

We have had no stability issues.

It's scaled to our needs.

Customer Service is immaculate.

Tech Support is immaculate.

There was no solution in place previously.

There was no set-up required.

It's done in-house, but there's no actual implementation needed.

There pricing and licensing options are very aggressive, but the holiday discount brought down the price further.

I think that StormRunner Load is the way forward and if HPE manages to support all protocols currently supported by LoadRunner/Performance Center eventually in StormRunner, it would be a massive game changer.

The charts dashboard, especially the results screen, is the most valuable feature. I’ve also configured the tests, so I’ve also used the test definition page, which is very easy to use, self-explanatory, and simple. The real value comes from the results screen.

StormRunner Load helped us evaluate the performance of the product version we were about to launch. It showed us bottlenecks, where our product reaches its limits, and different characteristics that affect this. For example, we had metrics we thought were affecting our response time. Initially we thought there were two metrics, but we found another significant metric we should have taken into account. Without StormRunner Load we wouldn’t have known about this "missing" metric.

I think the report page could be improved, although we have used the reporting feature. It wasn’t accurate enough to use as a report that I could send my managers. I had to take additional screenshots to help fill in the reporting. I actually, ultimately, generated a report on my own.

I've been using it for two months.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

There was no previous solution in place.

This solution immediately helped us to determine the priorities for what to develop next and where we would reach our limits. Because we had a clear prediction, we knew when it would be urgent to develop features, in various cases. Before StormRunner Load, we didn’t have a clear developer roadmap, and now its very clear where we should invest, our weakest links, and what we need to do to strengthen weak links.

If you’re using third-parties for networking, cloud based servers, load balancer, VPN providers etc., all of them should be informed about the expected load. We had a VPN provider that was expecting thirty users per hour and calibrated accordingly, and the minute we started our load test it shut down. This third-party was not ready. Once we informed them that we were increasing our load, they increased their ability to support the load test.

No, this was my first choice.

It is very cost effective to start with a low number of virtual users for a short amount of time in order to verify that your company system is running properly. Start with a small load test, run it until completion, verify that you see the logs you intended to see, and all people involved in the environment are ready to see what they expected.

Its ability to work well with other HP products, particularly SiteScope, allows us to maintain consistency in our infrastructure. The different solutions work seamlessly together and free up resources that would otherwise be spent on conflicting vendors and products.

It's fast, easy to use, has a user-friendly UI, and you can split users. It also works well with SiteScope and other HP products.

It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need.

Also, a lot of our customers have issues logging into the cloud.

It's been stable.

It scales fine because our customers are usually larger.

Technical support is something we're not so happy with.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We primarily use this solution to deploy our apps to the server, for public use.

The usability and ability to integrate with other solutions is quite good. When I use it in on Azure, then Red Hat is the most likely solution I use. When I use AWS, then I tend to use Lambda functions. In either case, it works well and you can use it either way.

The features on offer do everything we need them to.

I don't know of any features that should be added. The solution isn't lacking anything at this point. We're happy with what is on offer.

I have had seven years of experience using this solution. It's been quite a while at this point.

We're a customer. We don't have any business partnerships with the company.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten overall. The solution has been quite good and integrates well with other products. It has all of the features we need and isn't really lacking anything that we've noticed.