OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Reviews

We primarily use OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise for performance testing. There are three main components: the Fusion Loader, the analysis part, and the Vision, which we use to record diverse scenarios. We configure it for multiple users. The controller is used for load testing, stress testing, regression testing, or bundling various scenarios. Once the tests are complete, we analyse response time.

Depending on the requirements, LoadRunner enables load testing for distributed applications or services. Generally, we execute load tests for around three hours. Performance tests can span eight to nine hours but vary depending on project specifics. We have three different approaches for performance testing based on project requirements.

We have a different option. We can schedule our scripts to execute at a specific time based on the requirement with a specified number of users. LoadRunner offers such facilities which other tools lack.

OpenText helps us identify the amount of load testing impacts on overall performance. We can measure metrics like hits per second and detect deviations or issues through graphs. We can filter out response times based on timings and identify spikes in the database or AWS reports. We can also analyse long-running queries or reasons behind response time degradation. By filtering out details like 90th or 95th percentile response times, we gain insight into when and why transactions degrade, providing detailed information.

Some minor issues, like controller crashes and script generation, take time. Sometimes, the code is not generated when we record the scripts in the backend. After clearing the cache, the solution sorts out issues, like identifying the root cause.

LoadRunner integrates with specific tools seamlessly. We do have plans to integrate with Dynatrace or Splunk.

I have been using OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise for 7 to 8 years.

The product is stable. There is no downtime, but sometimes some scripts get corrupted, and the script code generation takes time. There have been environmental or data machine issues.

We have three different instances of LoadRunne. If we're using 1000 users in one of the environments, we use the same hardware for the other environments.

We have one standard license key for all users. 10-15 people have access to this solution.

Customer support is good. We get support for whatever issues we have raised.

Positive

The initial setup is easy because I have already spent seven to eight years.

First of all, we need a license key. Then, we need to download the LoadRunner Enterprise software. We require specific specifications. The machines should have a minimum amount of RAM and CPU. We need to fulfil three requests before we can download the LoadRunner file. The installation usually takes around three to four hours.

We have a separate team for support. For example, if we require more CPU, RAM, or drive size on an IBM machine, we seek support from them. However, one person is sufficient for the installation and setup process.

There is another team responsible for maintenance.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We do have an address to the client protocol we are using, and web streaming and web services. 

With LoadRunner, 80% of the cases will be supported. It has everything. It supports most features. It's very feature-rich.

The solution offers helpful guidelines and has good documentation.

While they keep on working on improving the tool level, the tool has instability in terms of loading and processing. There are a lot of times hanging issues up until version 11 or 11.2. After that, the productions are pretty stable. 

They changed the GUI. They had wanted to change the GUI to improve the look and feel. However, since that time, we see a lot of hanging issues.

The implementation process can be a bit complex. Even with 15 years of experience, I have trouble finding things. 

They need to make scalability functionality better.

We've raised hundreds of bugs in the Ajax TruClient protocol. I don't know how they are doing testing. However, they should test it in other scenarios. When you're releasing a protocol, the test coverage should be more. They need to do a better job at releasing a full product instead of releasing something half-done and fixing it along the way.

The solution is expensive. 

I've been using the solution for ten years. 

The solution does have some instability and hanging issues. It has to be improved as it is causing a business loss for them.

Scalability-wise, it has to improve in certain protocols. If you take Ajax TruClient, the memory consumption was very huge in the terms of the particular protocol. That needs to be somewhere where we can minimize the memory consumption to have more virtual users run on the system. 

People need to buy too many load generators to run their tests. Even for file users, we need a lot of load generators to run that.

We have seven to eight team members using the solution right now. 

We have been using it for the past 10 years with the same client. We have all the version upgrades happening from LoadRunner ALM products onwards. We went into the ALM Enterprise. And we were the people who raised hundreds of bugs in the Ajax TruClient protocol. 

We've dealt with lots of bugs, and we scheduled a meeting for support. They take some time to get to a solution. They'll sometimes take months to get a solution in place.

I understand it is not a small thing when you are launching a new protocol and all. However, they should have, before launching, fewer bugs. They need to take care of a lot of things before launching the product.

We've used JMeter, WebLOAD, and NeoLoad.

While Micro Focus' competition does offer a lot of tools, this solution does a better job of laying out guidelines.  There are examples and use cases, and they respond to questions. Those are the reasons people are still using them.

The installation process is a little complex. There has been confusion in terms of the Enterprise version and whatever they have in the exhibition suite. We call it ALM. The UI is not as user-friendly now with the changes they have made. It would help if they simplified their interface a bit. It might make implementation easier. 

It used to be simpler. Now we have a separate team that handles the setup.

We have two people available that can deploy and maintain the product.

We don't see an ROI as we mainly recommend the tool and clients use it.

It's a costly tool. When you are paying for something, there are expectations that it will work properly.

I'd rate the affordability at a two out of five. 

You do need to buy a few extra features that are not included in the main cost.

We are customers.

If a client has a budget, I would recommend the solution. It is a good tool. However, there are stability issues, and it does have a complex UI. It's good if you have specific protocols and specific requirements. When that is the case, there may be no other tool available. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

I use OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise to ensure the stability and performance of various technologies and platforms. We ensure that the platforms are performant and are able to run at the speeds the business requires. We also wanted to ensure stability as the code moves through our environment.

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise has allowed us to reduce incidents and focus and ensure code and quality are built into our delivery.

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise supports a number of protocols. The number of automation built into the platform, specifically in the analysis area, is valuable to us.

The process of upgrading LoadRunner can be difficult and time-consuming.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

The solution's stability is fine.

The tool is very scalable. We have had no issues.

Getting support sometimes is a struggle, and it takes a long time to get cases resolved. The support could be improved.

Neutral

Previously, we used LoadRunner Professional.

The deployment was complex. It is very important to us that LoadRunner offers flexible deployment options. I want to be able to deploy the solution in a fashion that is in the best interest of my organization.

We used a consultant to deploy the tool.

We have seen an ROI. The product is worth the money.

The tool is very expensive. It's probably one of its biggest weak points. As a capability manager for performance, it's a battle every year to substantiate the cost. There's an opportunity for OpenText to help us educate people who are not in the field.

We evaluated NeoLoad, Ranorex, JMeter, and the Silk portfolio. We chose LoadRunner because of the breadth of support. No other tool had the breadth of support.

We use the TruClient feature. We use TruClient for understanding webpage rendering. It's TruClient's strong suit. TruClient has been very important to us. Without it, we won't understand the JavaScript rendering the users see on the front end. TruClient is a great option if using standard HTTP is either unsuccessful or time-prohibited.

LoadRunner Enterprise has definitely helped streamline our testing processes. We're using it almost 24/7 to support a host of platforms across the enterprise. If we didn't have it in place, the organization would have hundreds of performance-related incidents every year. However, we don't have them because we're catching them.

Streamlining our testing processes allows us to meet business demands and keep up with very aggressive schedules. LoadRunner has a lot of capability straight out of the box. One of the best things about it is the automation that's built into it. It has a lot of automation and functionality that many other tools don't have.

LoadRunner Enterprise has helped me save time. LoadRunner Enterprise has helped improve our product quality by ensuring transparency between product, delivery, and test. With load testing, we can accurately inform the business of how the platform is doing. By doing so, we can ensure that expectations between product, business, and IT are aligned. If they're not, those issues can be addressed before we go to production.

Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We are using the solution for performance/load/stress testing of in-house business applications. We have various environments like web applications, cloud-based, SAP, and ERP products. Loadrunner will be used based on end-user requirements.

The main purpose of usage of this tool is to validate the performance of newly developed applications before they are deployed on production. This tool will help us to mimic end-user actions and measure response times from various locations in addition to checking the maximum concurrency supported.

The tools help us to validate the scalability of applications and the limitations of the end-user apps. The main purpose of usage of this tool is to validate the performance of newly developed applications before they are deployed on production. This tool will help us to mimic end-user actions and measure response times from various locations in addition to checking the maximum concurrency supported.

We have used this tool on multiple applications to measure the performance of the system under test. Loadrunner became our enterprise solution for performance testing.

The host performance testing of any application using a host/controller is the most valuable feature. This feature helps to replicate virtual users, configure multiple test scripts, and configure multiple simulators from various geographic locations to run a single test. There are a lot of configurations available to replicate browser cache/with no browser cache and network-related features prior to triggering any test.

The beauty of the host is that any tester can launch it and check the status of runs, monitor test statistics, etc.

The last few years I haven't seen the need for any improvements to the tool other than fancy stuff or maybe moving from client-server to PC or LoadRunner enterprise. There are a lot of tools in the market nowadays where you don't need to spend much time on scripting. Focus on improving the scripless capabilities.

There is not much value added when upgrading/migrating from older versions to newer versions. OpenText should focus on important features and make end-users like us go for Loadrunner/OpenText products as soon as they are in the market. 

We have been using the tool for the last 10+ years.

We did not previously use a different solution.

OpenText/Microfocus productions are costly. They need to focus on minimizing the cost.

We did not evaluate other options. 

We employed OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise for a diverse range of applications and objectives. Since we are in the healthcare industry, this solution helps us to manage the digitalization of the data and ensure successful end-to-end workflow.

It delivers multiple benefits across various aspects. We can efficiently monitor all of the system resources and network usage. It also helps us to identify performance bottlenecks, and optimize application performance.

The most beneficial features of the solution are flexibility and versatility in their performance. It is seamlessly handling a wide range of protocols and technologies.

Offering a direct integration feature would ensure a completely smooth experience. Until now, we had to use different tools running in the back to get a perfectly detailed analysis.

We have been using the solution for a couple of years. 

The stability is at a very high level. I would rate it nine out of ten.

If we put aside the licensing challenges, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise can stimulate numerous virtual users, making it suitable for testing large-scale systems. I would rate the scalability eight out of ten.

We didn't have many situations that required us to request assistance, but when we faced certain minor issues, they provided excellent support.

Positive

We used to utilize Apache JMeter, and it is a good solution, but OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise offers better features that are suitable for our business. Its flexibility in terms of building a CI/CD pipeline across the platforms is a benefit.

The initial setup process is straightforward for a simple type of server architecture. But if you are integrating separate test generator engines between the setups, it will require support from the supplier. It is important to have a strong understanding of performance-testing concepts. 

The suitability of the solution depends on the specific needs and requirements of an organization or project. It also depends on which model will be integrated and used, as does the price structure and the licensing. We are content with the pricing and find it to be reasonable in terms of value for money. The only challenge is when it comes to large enterprise companies that are working with multiple suppliers. The integration of licenses is very difficult or in some cases, impossible.

OpenText LoadRunner is the leading solution as of now. There are definitely other tooling options available in the market, but if you are searching for an enterprise-level solution, LoadRunner is the number one product.

Overall, we are pleased with the solution as it satisfies our requirements and meets our expectations. I would rate it eight out of ten.

We have used it for most of our web-based application testing. We have more than 25 applications that are tested with this tool, with a load of more than 1,000 users as well. It's mostly for the enterprise applications like CRM or Citrix, as well as the Google Toolkit applications, and then there are the different protocols that this particular LoadRunner supports, like through clients or APS services. Those are where we can capture and run our tests with the LoadRunner.

Looking at the load of more of the applications and the testing needs have definitely been met. Even new users or interns can manage the solution, so there's a low learning curve.

It's a market leader and a pioneer. People enjoy working on it. It helps give them a career boost and opens up opportunities. 

What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution. With it, you could do reports and it does all the statistics, and then you can do the cross-verification or cross-analysis as well to look at comparisons. Those are fascinating.

The installation is quick.

The UI and how they show different methodologies of monitoring need improvement. We'd like to integrate data from different clouds as well as different servers. 

Integration can be tricky during the setup process. 

Technical support in not helpful or responsive. 

They have been doing a lot actually to improve the product right now. 

I've been using the solution for more than ten years. 

Most of the time, the solution is stable. If our environment is stable, the solution is reliable. 

The solution can scale. We've been using it for most users and have been increasing our servers - and they have LoadRunner installed on them. We are expanding usage. However, the cost may be a deciding factor. 

We have six people using it in our company.

Support is very poor. We've had a very frustrating experience with them. Initially, when you raise issues with them, they always send a link to some sort of document that is useless to us. After two or three follow-ups on our end, we might start getting answers. Once we escalate further, we get to the professionals, and only then will we get to a solution.

Negative

We previously used IBM's Rational Robot, as well Silk Performer.

The installation was quick, however, getting integration and getting the data flowing, that's tricky. We need to rely entirely on the Micro Focus team for that. It's not like we can do it in-house. Though we know how to install it, there are a lot of complications when we try to go through it. 

We had three people deploy the solution and two people are available for maintenance. 

We had the Micros Focus team assist us with the initial setup process. 

We have witnessed an ROI, however, when you take into account how we're costing it's likely not a helpful number to share. 

The solution is pretty expensive. I can't speak to the exact cost. I'd rate it three out of five in terms of affordability.

We did evaluate one or two other options before choosing LoadRunner. We looked at Silk Performer and another solution called Compuware. 

I am not using the latest version of the solution.

While we use on-premises deployments right now, we are starting to look into the cloud. 

I'd advise potential new users to look at their budget. If it's a larger enterprise, LoadRunner will make sense due to the big environment. If budget is a concern for a company, it may be better to look at other options. 

I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

Our organization uses the solution for testing the performance of applications mainly. At times, we have also used the services provided by the solution, like network virtualization and service virtualization.

The type of application support Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise has is very good. The solution does support a wide range of technologies and protocols. Plus, two features, network virtualization, and service virtualization, are really helpful. Apart from that, the way they have their billing scenarios, like the execution, is very good. We can also have a lot of flexibility in building various scenarios or a load test which is one good thing. I like the way they have made their reporting area. Using certain features in the solution, the insights one gets are very useful for understanding the performance issues in the application.

Some areas for improvement in the solution are mainly based on the fact that right now, in the market, there are emerging low-code or no-code platforms, like NeoLoad. In Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, we have to work on scripting. So, I need a skillful resource if I want to hire anyone. In the case of NeoLoad, a low-code environment, and platform, I don't have to search for a skilled resource. I can provide cross-skill training to the existing workforce, and they can work for me. 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 have been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise for ten to twelve years. Also, I am using the solution's latest version. My company is just a customer of the solution.

It is a stable solution.

It takes time to build skills around Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. Also, a person who knows LoadRunner can work on any other tool since that person will know the basic concept of performance testing. There are a lot of users in my company who are using the solution, and if I were to give a count of the users, then it would be in the thousands. Presently, there is an increase in the usage of the solution and the number of users using the solution. Also, I don't have an idea of how the solution is being used by other teams which operate in other countries.

The solution has a good customer service and support team. I have dealt with them multiple times in the past, and they do support us wherever required. I rate the technical support team eight or nine out of ten. To be more concrete, I would rate them a nine.

Positive

The solution's initial setup process was straightforward.

The solution was deployed on the cloud.

The solution has all the capabilities. The only area they need to work on is the low-code platform which has started emerging in the market lately. If they could do something in that area, it would be a great overall tool in the market. Right now, it takes a lot of time for me to train people and get them onboarded. However, while I use other tools like NeoLoad, I can easily train my team.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise scripting tool. We run scripts using this tool. The performance center is where we do the simulations and testing based on whatever application the organization that I work for uses.

The most valuable aspect of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the overall support it has for a lot of different applications and defined domains.

The price of this solution could be less expensive. However, this category of solutions is expensive.

I have been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise for approximately 13 years.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is stable. We are in the process of upgrading to the newer version, but the version we are using supports many applications, such as web and Java-based applications.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is scalable.

We have three people using this solution in my organization.

I have previously used JMeter.

We install Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise in our local systems.

We did the installation of the solution with our system administrators or a manager who has access. Not everyone has the correct access to install the software.

This solution can be expensive.

One person is enough for the maintenance of the solution when we have three people using it.

I rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise a ten out of ten.