OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Reviews

We use the solution for our banking systems.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is on our own computer. We do all the development of scripting on our own computers. When we run the solution, we can run it on the cloud or in LoadRunner Enterprise.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to use and has flexibility that allows it to be used on a variety of applications.

The solution has something called True Client which makes it easy to create scripts if we have a big application with many steps. True Client is helpful when we record our scripts and we have the possibility to generate a standard script from the True Client script. I use True Client a lot.

The solution can be improved by adding more AI to the True Client feature.

The cost of the solution is high and can be improved.

I have been using the solution for over 25 years.

There are some problems with the solution's stability, so it's quite stable, but not totally stable. I give the stability an eight out of ten.

I give the scalability a ten out of ten.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to set up, record, and use. We have a department that is responsible for deployment.

I give the deployment a ten out of ten.

The implementation is completed in-house.

We found that the return on investment is around 50 percent, even if the tool is expensive. We have found bugs that would have been critical if we had pushed the application into production. The solution has made up for its cost by saving us from pushing faulty scripts into production.

I'm not sure if other similar solutions are cheaper, but Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is expensive, and could easily be 20 percent cheaper.

I give the cost a one out of ten.

I give the solution a ten out of ten. Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the best in the market, depending on what it is being used for. For API testing, we can find something cheaper. But the solution is good for that as well. For bigger applications that are Gooey-based, it's the best option.

Creating a script depends greatly on the type of application we have. If we have an API system, it will likely take less time to create a script since the developers have likely already set it up for us to use. However, if we have a lengthy application, it may take us days to create a single script.

We have between five and ten developers using the solution.

I recommend the solution, but it's expensive and only a big company could afford it. A small company wouldn't have the capacity to use the solution or the money to pay for it.

We use Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise for load testing and stress testing. We also use it for running performance schedulers during specific times. We also use the solution to determine testing trends. We're using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise less for TruClient because the TruClient protocol takes up a lot of memory.

What I like most in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the comparison between two different exhibitions which gives value to my company. I also like that the solution is user-friendly, especially in terms of making specific changes. For example, in the past, you can't see the changes when you upload scripts into the Performance Center, but now, it has that visibility, so whenever you want, you can change the script in the Performance Center.

I also like that Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the only tool you can utilize for all your needs, even for different protocols and scripting. The solution also has the latest features, for example, networkability, where it can, within the UI, follow the waterfall model. You can use the insights in the Performance Center of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise to address or test URLs that usually take up much time.

A room for improvement in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is that it should take multiple exhibitions for a particular scenario and have automatic trending for that. This will be a very useful feature that lets users look into how many exhibitions happened for the scenario and their performance, and you should be able to see the data within the Performance Center dashboard.

For example, there's one scenario I'm focusing on multiple times in a month, and if I check five times, there's no way for me to see the trend and find out how it went with those five exhibitions. It would be great if the Performance Center has a view of all five exhibitions, particularly transaction by transaction, and how they happened. If Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise shows you the time trends, information about one exhibition to another, and how each performed, it'll be an immense feature, and that should be visible to every user.

Reporting should be simpler in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. If I did a scenario with one exhibition now, and I did that scenario again, then I should be able to schedule that scenario for the exhibition, and if that scenario is executed multiple times, there should be the option to turn it into a single view that shows you all the transactions, how the performance was, what the trend graph is for a particular time, etc.

The report from Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise would show you the difference between two exhibitions, if I did one today at 12:00 PM and another at 12:00 PM tomorrow, but if you want to see the difference between three or more exhibitions, the solution doesn't have that option. To see the difference, you'll need to do more work in terms of uploading files and doing the comparisons manually, and this should be improved.

An added feature I'd like to see in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is a converter. I'd also like a performance file extraction feature in the scripting alone. For example, if I'm using the JMX file, I should be able to convert it within the solution, same with other files such as the HAR and PCAP files. Whatever performance file is there, if I can extract it and make a script, that would be a very valuable addition to Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. Another example is if you're not able to record the script in the solution, if there is that option with a PCAP or HAR file, for example, a converter, that will add some value. There's a conversion for the HAR file, but with the PCAP file, I'm not so sure.

I've been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise for three years now.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is a very stable solution. My company only had to contact the Micro Focus team twice when there was an issue related to tailor-made requirements within my organization, but it wasn't because of a Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise feature, and other than that, I didn't see any issues regarding its stability.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is a scalable solution.

The technical support team for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is very responsive. My company contacted support about an issue that was related to requirements tailored to my organization and the team helped in resolving the issue and making the solution stable.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise has a very responsive technical support team that was upfront in informing my team when it's feasible to set up a meeting, and when the issue needs to be redirected to another person who's knowledgeable about it.

On a scale of one to five, I would rate the Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise technical support team four out of five.

Before Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, we used Apache JMeter which was the only other option because it's an open-source tool. It was deployed on-premises and not on the cloud.

We also used the normal version of the Performance Center before Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise which was two years prior and we had to install the Performance Center on-premises and set up load generators and load controllers. The Enterprise version we've been using for the past three years.

The main differences between Apache JMeter, the Performance Center, and Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise are the usability and insights given by the last two solutions. Both the Performance Center and Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise give more insights, and they also offer more automation versus Apache JMeter.

With Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise and the Performance Center, users can leverage a quick exhibition after setting up the scenario, doing quick checks, and creating reports, but in Apache JMeter, users have to manually set up, observe, and do the reports.

There are more features in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise as well as it's cloud-based versus Apache JMeter which is only a plug-in, so we have to do everything manually in Apache JMeter.

In terms of how easy or complex setting up Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is, I'm not the right person to ask because a different team handles the setup in my company. The solution is set up on the cloud, on-demand, and requires load generators or controllers, but I didn't take part in setting it up. I'm just an end-user that utilizes Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise.

As I'm an end-user of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise and not involved in its licensing, I don't have information on how much it costs.

I evaluated Apache JMeter before using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise.

In terms of the number of resources using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, I'm in a large organization, and in the beginning, there were ten resources. Nowadays, with the solution being tailor-made for my company, twenty-five to thirty resources belonging to different teams use Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise.

The solution is used every day as my company can't live without performance testing.

I'm rating Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise nine out of ten because it still has some room for improvement.

My company is a customer of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise.

We use it for doing automation testing, and there are various teams that use it for performance testing, load testing, etc. For ALM, we use it to create requirements, test labs, and test plans and get our test results in.

LoadRunner Enterprise has helped our organization in being able to document everything and maintain the history. This way, in the future, if the product gets enhanced or new features get added, you know what was tested previously, and then you also have the new stuff. You have the history of those changes and all the testing that has been done.

We use the TruClient feature for browser-based testing, but I am not the end user for it. My guess is that it is helpful for reducing scripting work.

LoadRunner Enterprise has affected our users. Testing is obviously a must before you release a software product. The fact that you can automate some of the testing, and you can do stress testing, performance testing, and simulate a load as if users are actually using it helps a lot. You better understand how the application will operate when it gets into production, and if there are issues, you can spot those early on.

LoadRunner Enterprise has helped streamline our testing processes. We have a process in place for users who need access to it. There is a governance team for the rules and how the product should be used and not. There is a little bit more structure. Based on what I have heard in the organization, it does appear to help them. LoadRunner Enterprise makes it easier for them to be able to do their tasks. They can automate things without them having to manually do it.

LoadRunner Enterprise has helped save us time, but I do not have the metrics.

LoadRunner Enterprise has helped improve our product quality. We can spot issues early on. That helps a lot. This way, we are aware of the issue before we go live in production. We can remediate it before the product goes live.

With ALM, being able to write our test scripts and being able to document our test results are valuable. That comes in handy. This way, we have a record of the things that have been tested. There are also workflows that we can create, which are very helpful. 

With LoadRunner Enterprise, doing various types of performance testing, load testing, and automation testing has been very helpful for some of the teams.

I work more on the administration side. I am not a daily user, but especially during this conference, we are seeing that everything is going to the cloud. We are trying to see what are some of the benefits of going to the cloud.

I have seen some users report some issues, but I have personally not had any issues.

My organization was already using it when I joined, but I have personally been using it for over three years.

I have not seen any stability issues. I have seen some users report some issues, but we will usually open a case if we cannot figure it out.

With LoadRunner, you get load generators. You can add more as needed. Its scalability is fine.

We get our support through another vendor.

When I joined the team, they were already using it, so I do not know what they were using before.

I have been involved in the upgrades. If it is a patch or something small, it is less time-consuming, but if it is a major upgrade, it takes more time and more planning. We need to assess how long it will take, what resources are needed, and do we need to request new servers.

My guess would be that we have seen an ROI.

Overall, I would rate LoadRunner Enterprise a nine out of ten.

I am a managed service provider, a reseller, and a consultant. In other words, I am a total geek. 

I added a whole bunch of features and changes three or four years, but I don't know if they followed my recommendations; however, they did implement some changes that I suggested.

There's an onsite version and there's a cloud version. We typically don't want an enterprise type version because the clients that we work with are fairly large. The last place we used this solution employed 150,000 people.

We have clients that have as few as 10 employees, and other clients that have thousands of employees. I would say the mid-sized businesses that we work with are between 250 and 700 people.

It's all Citrix. We do load balance. We do load testing for Citrix deployments to determine whether or not we're going to get what we expected.

The ability to run long packages for extended periods of time, and actually mimic end users. That's really what we use it for.

We use it for validation. When you put together a system that has two to three thousand people on it, you need to be able to test it. To do that, you need a product that allows you to cast two to three thousand users on a system.

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly.

The reporting has room for improvement.

I have been using this solution, on and off, for roughly six to seven years. 

In the last 12 months, I don't think I've actually loaded it up, but I have had my PS team load it up several times.

It's a stable solution. I'd give OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise a 4.5 out of 5 on stability.

We never experienced any bugs or glitches; those are typically in the actual loads that you're running, but that's not their fault, that's your fault.

Scalability-wise, I have not had any problems. It's gone as high as I needed it to go. There are issues when supporting two to three thousand users. I don't ever go any higher than that.

A typical test is between roughly 150 and 250 users, and the most I've ever gotten is 3000. The scalability has been there for what I needed it to do. I really can't speak outside of that realm.

I have never called their technical support, but their online documentation is pretty good.

We deployed three different solutions. One of them was free from VMware and the other one was Login PSI. We didn't really switch, it's just different feature sets we're looking for or methodology we want to use; whether or not the client wants to spend a hundred grand upfront.

For me, the initial setup is straightforward — I've done it a few times now.

The price is okay. You're able to buy it, as opposed to paying for a full year. You can just on-demand purchase it for your users for a day or two, which is nice in an MSP business like mine. If I need to use it for separate clients, I don't have to have a huge layout of capital upfront.

Make sure you know what your use case is before you buy it.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine. It's very good at doing what it needs to do. I think that the reporting needs a little bit of work, but that's pretty much it. I think every reporting system needs a little bit of work, so take that with a grain of salt.

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.

The product is very user-friendly. It is the best in the market when it comes to performance testing and load testing. It gives accurate results. No other tool can match the product’s report quality.

The solution should increase the free users limit to 500 for all Micro Focus products.

I have been using the solution since 2019.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability a ten out of ten.

The support team needs to be more coordinated.

Neutral

The solution should decrease its price.

A lot of people choose JMeter because it is free. However, JMeter is not as good as LoadRunner. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Mostly it's to test APIs. That's been the main use case.

I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself. You can make a quick change.

The setup is straightforward. 

It's a stable solution. 

Support is helpful. 

Honestly, there really isn't any area for improvement. I think it's a great product.

Maybe the scroll bars could be a little bit bigger.

The solution is expensive. 

If they had an easy integration with, let's say, New Relic or Dynatrace, that would be something interesting. If we can see server monitoring data in the LoadRunner report, that would be ideal.

I've been using the solution for one year.

The product is reliable. It's stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We don't have too many people on the solution right now. We have ten to 15 people using it. We're using it almost daily. It's used 60% to 70% of the time. 

Support has been okay. Yeah, they've been pretty knowledgeable about everything. Responses are generally on time. I typically get a response within a day or so.

Positive

We previously used WebLOAD. In WebLOAD, to set it up, if your script needs to use a data file, it's a wizard. It takes six or seven steps to set it up. In LoadRunner, it's a lot easier. It doesn't take that long. It's a very straightforward process.  

The other thing is, RadView uses JavaScript language for the script, whereas LoadRunner uses C. LoadRunner recently has given the option for testers to use JavaScript as well. You can add more users on a LoadRunner test. Their load gens are more scalable. They allow more users with load gen than with RadView.

Right now, we tend to prefer LoadRunner.

The implementation was very straightforward. 

I'd rate the process four out of five in terms of ease of implementation. 

The entire implementation process was handled in-house. We did not use any consultants or integrators. 

I don't know this as a fact. However, I've heard that LoadRunner is pricey.

I have heard from different customers that although LoadRunner's a great product, sometimes they are looking for alternatives, since the pricing model for LoadRunner's very expensive. Sometimes customers will look at other options for testing tools due to the cost.

I'm an end-user.

I'd recommend the solution. For API testing, LoadRunner, getting the script developed in LoadRunner is very straightforward. It's not super difficult. You can get a REST API script in LoadRunner done within an hour if you have all the information and if you know the HTTP headers and stuff like that. You can get it up and running in an hour. 

I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten. I would give them a perfect score if the pricing was better.

The primary use case of the solution is for testing.

The most valuable feature is the Vuser protocols.

The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and by including autocorrelation capability.

I have been using the solution for one and a half years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward and usually takes a couple of hours to complete.

I give the solution a seven out of ten.

I recommend that anyone that wants to use the solution first have their requirements written out.