OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

It's mainly used for performance testing. One of its features called TrueClient has helped us see how users interact with our applications.

It also contributed to improving the quality of our products. By saving time, we're able to identify performance issues and address them more quickly, which ultimately leads to better quality.

It helped reduce our workload overall. The customization options make it easier to manage tasks.

We're now able to identify and address issues that arise during peak loads. We are able to figure out things and handle peak loads now. 

I appreciate its ability to handle various internal calls and its user-friendly interface.

Compared to other tools I've used, it saves about 20-30% of time due to its flexibility.

I also use the TrueClient feature for browser-based testing. I found the TrueClient feature to be a bit difficult to use and not very user-friendly for automating scripts. So there's room for improvement in that area.

There are a few features that I've seen in other tools that I'd like to see implemented or enhanced.

The installation and configuration process could be more streamlined, especially when it comes to distributed systems.

I have been using this tool for six years now. I use the Developer node.

It is a very old tool. It was originally with HPE, then Micro Focus, and now it's owned by OpenText.

The customer service and support are good.

Positive

We used JMeter. We switched because of the better support and flexibility offered by LoadRunner. It has a very wide range of support, covering most protocols and applications currently on the market.

It is on the higher side cost-wise, but the usability is good. If they reduced the cost, it would help smaller organizations like ours to take advantage of the features it offers.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. One of the biggest reasons is the TrueClient feature. It's very difficult to automate scripts with the TrueClient protocol.

In the banking industry, we utilize OpenText LoadRunner Professional to evaluate how systems handle increased workloads.

I implemented OpenText LoadRunner Professional because I encountered challenges when working with Oracle protocols in the banking industry, specifically regarding ticket resolution during correlation tasks.

What distinguishes OpenText LoadRunner Professional from other solutions is its controller log, which we use to simulate the number of users, and its user-friendly UI settings, which allows us to mimic user activity during performance testing.

LoadRunner has helped us save time. With a proper understanding of how the interface works, we can complete tasks quickly.

Employing LoadRunner has significantly enhanced our product quality, which is of paramount importance to us. With LoadRunner, we can precisely identify performance bottlenecks within our application and implement effective solutions to optimize its performance.

When it comes to simulation and report management, LoadRunner helps reduce our workload.

The front loader and the reporting features are the most valuable aspects of OpenText LoadRunner Professional.

The reporting and GUI have room for improvement.

I want LoadRunner Professional to have the capability to track various statistics from network databases and application servers. Currently, we rely on gathering this information from the respective teams. If LoadRunner Professional could provide this information, it would become our preferred tool.

I have been using OpenText LoadRunner Professional for 12 years.

OpenText LoadRunner Professional is a stable solution.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. While the solution is scalable, there is an associated cost.

While OpenText provides excellent customer support for partners, the lack of a phone support option limits the ways we can interact with them. The only methods of communication are through their portal or via email. If phone support were available, the overall support experience would be flawless. Sometimes, the issues we encounter are complex and challenging to resolve through text alone. Having access to 24/7 phone support would be immensely beneficial, allowing us to connect directly with representatives to discuss these matters effectively.

Positive

I have experience using Apache JMeter, LoadRunner Community Edition, and LoadRunner Cloud Edition. As a support specialist, I continue to utilize these solutions indirectly based on the project requirements, as I am not the decision-maker regarding the specific tool selection.

The initial deployment is straightforward, requiring only basic knowledge of the application and operating system. A detailed manual is available on the OpenText website for reference.

The implementation was completed in-house.

The price is a bit on the high side, but it is still affordable.

I would rate OpenText LoadRunner Professional nine out of ten.

I would only recommend LoadRunner Professional's TruClient feature for browser-based testing if it is for a single application as it is easier for scripting.

Grouping scripts based on IDs in LoadRunner Professional saved me a significant amount of time. Being able to record and manage scripts according to specific IDs streamlined the testing process. Using LoadRunner Professional's script grouping feature, I saved approximately 30 minutes on testing scheduling.

LoadRunner Professional's features, especially the script grouping, significantly contributed to improving product quality. The tool enabled efficient identification of issues during testing, fostering better collaboration within the team and facilitating quicker problem resolution.

LoadRunner Professional excels in simulating virtual users and assessing application performance. My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs. This allows for more organized and flexible testing scenarios. I appreciate the option to add and manage multiple scripts within these groups, providing a convenient way to handle diverse testing scenarios based on specific requirements.

In terms of improvement, it lacks mobile testing features present in some competitors, like GitMatters, which I find valuable. Adding this capability would enhance the tool's versatility, making it more convenient for testing mobile applications directly.

I have been working with LoadRunner Professional for a year.

We have not had any stability issues with the product so far.

The technical support for LoadRunner is generally responsive and helpful. I would rate them as a seven out of ten. While they address issues promptly, there is room for improvement when it involves collaboration with other technical support teams, which can sometimes extend resolution times.

Neutral

I have previously used JMeter.

Downloading LoadRunner Professional was straightforward via the portal, and the installation process was relatively easy, especially with a quick and standard setup. Overall, the initial deployment was user-friendly. It takes about 15 minutes to install it. LoadRunner Professional doesn't require much initial configuration. However, to test applications, it is necessary to open the firewall to accept traffic.

The pricing model, especially when involving partners, could use some improvement.

LoadRunner Professional greatly reduced my workload, I would say around an eight out of ten in an IT context. Its efficiency and helpful features made a substantial impact on the overall workload, streamlining processes and enhancing productivity.

Since using LoadRunner, my application or site has performed well under heavy loads, addressing errors originating from the server. The testing with LoadRunner helped identify and resolve issues, providing confidence in the application's performance even during peak loads.

I haven't had significant security issues since using LoadRunner for the past year. While I haven't explored its security features extensively, I haven't encountered any major problems. Contacting support has been helpful when needed.

Overall, I would rate LoadRunner Professional as an eight out of ten. It is user-friendly, the technical support is helpful, and the installation is straightforward.

The solution is a performance-assessing tool. It supports a myriad of protocols. That is a big advantage of LoadRunner.

LoadRunner has helped in projects where we needed to use different protocols. It's also for clients who had already bought LoadRunner before and wanted to make use of it. 

It works on Citrix and desktop applications. There are a lot of protocols that LoadRunner will be able to handle. It is a great tool in that sense since it has a wide range of options.

The autocorrelation feature is quite helpful. With it, we can dynamically handle new sessions or non-new variables. 

It is a good and stable tool. 

The licensing is not cheap. However, it the client has specific requirements LoadRunner, will likely meet their application expectations very well.

The organizational aspects could be better.  

There should be more integration with more open-source platforms. It would be great if it could integrate with GitLab, for example. 

More features could be added to make it more robust. 

I've used the solution for around four years. I've used the solution on various projects.

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. It gets good support from Micro Focus teams. I'd rate the stability 8.5 to nine out of ten in terms of reliability. 

It's a highly scalable tool. There are processes that can be added and can scale vertically and horizontally. 

It's a fairly straightforward setup. I'd rate it seven out of ten. It's a plug-and-play tool. There is a bit of a learner curve, however. You could also do some workarounds if you need to, however, that might make it more complex to set up. 

ROI is on a case-by-case basis. Likely there would be an ROI if an organization is heavily into LoadRunner. For example, if they had 100,000 or 200,000 users accessing the application at once where peak performance would be important.  

There's an Enterprise Professional and Cloud option as well. The cloud option is maybe called StormRunner. However, most clients choose on-premises deployments. I use the professional version.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten as it is more expensive. 

There is a free trial for up to 50 users that companies should try.

I'm a consultant. 

I've used LoadRunner XP versions and the latest LoadRunner, the 2021 R1 version.

I would advise new users to start with the professional versions. Then, if you have a requirement for an Enterprise version, you can go ahead and go to the Enterprise version. There is a free trial for 50 users. It's a good idea to take advantage of that. That way, you can try it out and see if LoadRunner's the better tool for you, for your organization, and you can look at pricing to see if it is a good match. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The main purpose is to simulate realistic scenarios to define and test the performance of different solutions or applications. For example, if there is a project to launch, a mobile app, and you want to see how it's going to perform when it is used by multiple users, OpenText LoadRunner will provide in-depth reports on potential performance bottlenecks and issues.

Its variety of testing tools for different applications is of great benefit, as well as its integration capabilities with other testing and monitoring solutions.

Compared to some other vendors, there is a lack of community support. It affects the response time when certain information is needed and not many resources are available. 

I have been utilizing OpenText LoadRunner Professional for four years. 

It demonstrates exceptional stability and reliability. I would rate it ten out of ten. 

It is a very scalable solution that supports a wide range of application types and can handle increasing load demands. I would rate it nine out of ten.

I would rate it six out of ten.

Neutral

I was using JMeter previously, it works on a similar basis. LoadRunner has an issue with its limited support, while JMeter has an open source, and it is easy to integrate with different solutions. The downside of the JMeter is that it is inefficient to detect threats in large-scale applications.

The initial setup was fairly easy. I would rate it eight out of ten.

The deployment of the solution was seamless and done very fast, as we only had to install the frame test server. 

It is a high-cost investment, particularly for companies with small budgets or limited testing needs. 

OpenText LoadRunner Professional aligns well with the specific requirements. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Multiple protocols are available in LoadRunner, so we can choose one based on our requirements. If it is a single protocol, we have to start recording the scripting and checking whether you can record through LoadRunner. Once the recording is done, we have to do scripting and execution. We have three people working on various applications for the same client. We are working simultaneously and sharing our work to finish our content.

I like LoadRunner's ability to use multiple protocols. That's one of the greatest features along with the ability to test service calls between the app and server. 

Sometimes, we aren't able to see an accurate page view while replying and executing the script. When you are navigating the application side by side, it needs to be displayed on a random viewer. Sometimes we will get a few applications, and we won't get others.

I have been using LoadRunner for my entire career, so it's been almost four years. 

LoadRunner is standalone. It doesn't rely on anything. There are three components. We are using a controller and analysis instead of a controller. We design a script and run it in the controller. In analysis, we do the reporting and analysis, but instead of a controller, we have the option called performance center, where we can run the script like the controller. However, the controller is a standard Windows-based application. If you choose the performance center, any number of people can access it at the same time.

I have used JMeter and NeoLoad. I switched to LoadRunner because the client preferred it. If they have a budget and need to see clear views, we will opt for LoadRunner. However, if they lack funds, they can use an open-source tool like JMeter. I also have more experience with LoadRunner, so I would prefer to use that. We can write any number of lines of code manually to make the script work.

LoadRunner is a little more expensive than NeoLoad, but LoadRunner's interface is more user-friendly. 

Whenever a client wants to improve their application, they will procure the licenses. It's simple to install. it will take hardly 20 to 30 minutes of time to install and we will get 50 user licenses free of cost.

It only takes 30 minutes to deploy on our application. It's on a private cloud that we use whenever we're working on a particular project. One person is enough to install it.

LoadRunner is a little more expensive than other solutions, but there are no hidden costs. 

I rate LoadRunner nine out of 10. You can get 50 users for free before you decide to procure the license, but run the script for multiple users.

My customers use it for performance testing. It is the ultimate tool for it.

It has features for recording. The best feature with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is that there is very little bottleneck or overhead issues. With LoadRunner, you can spawn 2000 contributions for one machine.

The pricing model, selling model, and business model need to be adjusted. For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost.

Technical support also needs to be improved.

Everyone wants to make the testing phase easy, and so, the recording feature needs to be more stable for every app and every command application. Right now, the call language is C, and it would be better if it were changed to another language such as JavaScript.

I've been using this solution for almost 20 years.

It's stable, but in the newest version, it takes about six months till we can guarantee the stability.

My customers have turned to Micro Focus' technical support, but they have mostly not been able to solve the problems. When the case has to do with the setup, the technical support has been useless. So, I would give them a three out of ten.

Negative

I have used several tools, but Micro Focus is the best. We can get things done in a very short period of time. If we used an open source tool, then we would need more time.

The initial deployment is quite simple. It's not complex and can be done in one or two days.

LoadRunner Professional is easy to maintain.

The licensing model is complex. You have to pick up the protocol and the number of concurrent users, and then select the level of concurrent users. For example, there would be one price for 100 to 500 users and another for 500 to 2000 users. If you choose two protocols, then you will have to pay twice the amount depending on the number of concurrent users.

I recommend LoadRunner to everyone because they have a community with 50 concurrent users. Micro Focus has done standard testing and guarantees the use of LoadRunner in this case. With an open source tool, however, there is no guarantee, and you would be using it at your own risk.

The purpose of using a tool like this is to reduce application performance risk. So, using a tool at your own risk to reduce the risk is not reasonable. Therefore, I recommend using LoadRunner and rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

The product gives protocol support to our organization. It is the biggest benefit.

It's a good tool. The solution supports a lot of protocols. The interface is good.

The solution is complex. Integrating the tool into CI/CD pipelines, dockerizing, and containerization is a bit difficult. It is not as easy and user-friendly as doing it in Locust and Gatling. The solution must be more user-friendly. It should provide integrations with Jenkins or GitHub Actions.

Processes like docking and containerization must be made easy for a tester to do the process. If a process takes ten steps, it must be reduced to two to three steps. We should be able to integrate with Docker, Jenkins, or GitHub within two to three steps.

I have been working with the solution for six months.

The tool is stable.

The solution is scalable. We would need more machines based on our script complexity, based on which we need to assess how many load generators we need to run. We can support the cloud load generators if we have a cloud account. Otherwise, we can choose k6 or Gatling because they support more virtual users for a given hardware resource. It is a simple web application. We can choose open-source tools rather than using a paid load testing tool.

Support is very good. I rate the technical support around eight or nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is not complex. We will be able to install it, but it will take a lot of steps. Open-source tools take two to three steps, while paid tools take eight to ten steps for deployment. The implementation is user-friendly.

I have been using the paid version of the product.

Nowadays, most of the features supported by LoadRunner can be obtained in JMeter. Many development-driven tools like Locust are coming up in the market, which are easy to integrate with CI/CD tools. Dockerizing, containerization, and running the performance test through the CI/CD pipeline are pretty much easier with development-driven tools like Locust and Gatling.

LoadRunner and WebLOAD support a lot of protocols that other open-source tools are not able to support. However, most features supported by these tools are available in the latest tools. Correlation can be done within five to ten minutes in LoadRunner. Whereas, in JMeter, it would take half an hour. JMeter’s UI is simple compared to LoadRunner’s.

To start working on performance testing, we need to use LoadRunner to understand all the concepts. LoadRunner helps us understand how the actual user distribution happens. After using LoadRunner, we can work on JMeter. JMeter doesn't have any script writing so we can manage it with the elements in the tool. Later, we can shift to any of the developer version tools.

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