OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

I primarily use LoadRunner Professional to load test applications in a manufacturing environment. 

LoadRunner Professional allowed us to load test potential new payroll solutions that would be implemented throughout the entire organization so that we knew which was best suited to performing well under pressure. 

LoadRunner Professional's most valuable features are the easy setup, the auto-correlation feature, the high number of protocols, the analysis, and the reporting.

Micro Focus has two separate products for web and mobile applications, which means you have to invest in both. LoadRunner Professional does have a mobile protocol, but it works on very few applications. Merging the two products would be a big improvement, especially if Micro Focus also ensures the on-prem and cloud solutions have the same features. They're also not great with communication, including about important things like new rollouts. 

I've been using LoadRunner Professional for five to six years.

LoadRunner Professional's performance has been good, and we've had no issues with stability.

LoadRunner Professional's technical support is really good - they respond promptly and give super support. They also have a nice, robust knowledge bank, so if there are any issues, you can usually find help on the support site or via the community.

The ease of LoadRunner Professional's setup process is one of its strengths - it's straightforward and takes a day or two to deploy.

We used a vendor team.

We've got quite a good ROI from LoadRunner Professional, as it has reduced our downtime, raised our response time, and allowed us to test the new payroll system for the entire organization. However, the ROI is lower than it could be as we only use LoadRunner sparingly to avoid higher costs.

LoadRunner Professional's licensing costs are on the higher side, apart from the Community Edition. The Community Edition is free but limited to fifty users; after that, you have to pay for extra users.

I would recommend LoadRunner Professional as a helpful, user-friendly tool with a huge knowledge base. The only thing to bear in mind is the higher cost. I would give LoadRunner Professional a rating of eight out of ten.

I use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional primarily for performance testing.

It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it.

They are immediately upgrading and providing the patch in this manner. It's good.

The drawback is that it is very expensive.

It is already a well-known tool with a vast number of features. The only issue is what they are actually making up for the asking rate.  A lot of people are unable to pay that much money in the industry.

I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support.

The price is too expensive.

I've been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for the last ten years and LoadRunner exclusively for the last twenty.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is 100 percent stable.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is 100 percent scalable.

We have 500 users in our organization.

I may use it 12 to 15 times per year.

I would rate the technical support a one out of five.

The technical support is very bad.

They are not providing any technical support, even though we have a support license. They have only hired people with zero knowledge.

They are completely unresponsive.

If I run into any problems or have any issues, I will resolve them only by myself. I will not rely on any technical support. If I raise a support ticket, they will actually require my setting for more than a month or two to solve a very simple problem.

Negative

I am new to this company. I only use the company website and the CS portal. Other than that, I do not use any of the other products.

I work in performance testing and I am currently using RadView or WebLOAD, as well as a Micro Focus LoadRunner and Silk Performer. At the same time, I used a couple of IBM products, including SLAMD and the rational performance tester. Aside from that, I use a variety of other products such as JMeter and others.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I would rate the initial setup a five out of five.

Pricing depends on our choices because it depends on what type of protocol we are getting, what type of licensing we are getting, and what kind of relationships we have with HP and Micro Focus. We can't say how much it will be based on that.

I cannot say because we are technical managers and I am not involved in any costing or pricing issues. I am not involved with any pricing.

I would rate the pricing a one out of five. It is expensive.

I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional a ten out of ten.

Without a doubt, it is an excellent product.

Our primary use case was for performance testing and platform application problems. We used it mainly in the banking sector and for API testing. It's multi-purpose. I recently moved to a different company.

This is a very comprehensive tool. It helped us with performance testing and allowed us to capture the actual performance engineering as well. 

If they were to add some kind of specific level monitoring, I think that would be very useful. When it comes to the main load of operation, it stimulates the load by using the underlying mechanism, either the API or some other protocol. If they were able to capture the UI aspect as well, that would be very, very helpful. This is an expensive solution and perhaps they could change their modeling to improve that.

I used this solution for over 12 years. 

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is scalable. The whole objective of LoadRunner is scalability. In the organization, we had somewhere around 20 users supporting multiple customers. 

The technical support is very good. 

Positive

I also have experience with JMeter. In comparison, if it's a wave application or to some degree API testing, then JMeter works well and it's a free tool so we can tweak it to our needs. We can use BlazeMeter for the same purpose. They are cheaper options than LoadRunner. But when it comes to different types of protocols, unique protocols, those are typically supported by LoadRunner. It's a very comprehensive tool and that's why it's costly.

The initial setup is not that straightforward. It requires specialists to train LoadRunner users. We used integrators to assist with implementation. The solution doesn't really require any maintenance. 

Micro Focus offers several options for licensing, it really depends on the number of users you have and your use case. 

It's important to have proper parameterization and correlation as part of the scripting. The workflow or modeling has to be done appropriately according to the load that will be required and that needs to be done prior to implementation. Know what your steps will be, how you plan to increase the load and replicate real-world scenarios.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

LoadRunner handles the testing of complex multi-user scenarios. It was not complex. It's pretty easy. 

The reports have been effective in identifying system bottlenecks. It offers very good reports.

Sometimes when we were migrating from one version to another, some of our scripts started failing. And configuration-wise, we used to get support since we had the license with us. We used to just connect with Micro Focus, and the turnaround time was very less. It was very fast.

With my understanding and experience, for future releases, I suggest some correlation features that had to be tuned from the tool because, for SAP applications, capturing dynamic values from the responses and other technical things still had to be done manually.

In my previous job, I worked with OpenText LoadRunner Professional.

I used it for almost 14 years. 

Around 14 people used it. 

There were some technical challenges, but the support was pretty good.

They could work on some more things because there are some more complex applications, like SAP applications, wherein some of the challenges were capturing dynamic values and other things that had to be done manually.

Positive

I already put forth the proposal for LoadRunner Professional in my current company. 

The implementation was very straightforward and not an issue. To get comfortable with LoadRunner, it was just three to four months for me. 

Within four to five months, I was totally comfortable with it and started doing all the activities.

The license was a bit expensive. That was the reason we used to depend on the customer to fund it.  

I would recommend it to other users. I recommend LoadRunner for every company where performance testing is considered a key value.

Because I have some experiences wherein some companies will not consider performance itself as their key thing. So wherever performance is being concentrated, I'll propose LoadRunner as the first thing.

Overall, I would rate it a nine 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.

I use this product primarily for performance testing in various software applications. There are web-related use cases, as well.

The most valuable feature is the ability to create performance test cases quickly and then execute them. It provides a lot of powerful features to do that very efficiently and effectively.

The flexibility could be improved. For example, there are some use cases where I prefer to use NeoLoad rather than LoadRunner because of the flexibility that it provides.

I have been working with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for the past 10 to 15 years.

We have had no significant issues with stability or performance.

It is easy to scale and configure. We have approximately 50 people that work with it.

There are issues from time to time that we need help with. There have been specific problems that we reached out to the vendor about, and they have mostly been resolved on time.

I am satisfied with the support.

I have used several other performance testing tools.

One of the other ones that I have used is NeoLoad, which is a more recent entrant in this space. It's a lot more flexible to use than some other products.

When it comes to setting up test cases, the process is slightly different in NeoLoad. It is a little more automated than LoadRunner.

NeoLoad is also more cost-effective than LoadRunner.

The suitability of one product over another depends on the use case. Both of them have their strengths. LoadRunner is a much more longstanding and mature product in the market.

The initial setup is a complex process that is not too straightforward. However, with some expertise, it is not a big problem.

It took a couple of days for us to deploy.

We did most of the implementation internally. I handled it myself.

LoadRunner is more expensive than some competing products.

The pricing is a little too high. However, everything is mostly included in the initial license. It depends on how many nodes you want to set up. This is what determines some of the additional costs.

My advice for anybody who is looking into implementing LoadRunner is to try it out. Start playing with the product and test it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for load testing. 

The executive management is more confident when they go for production. They know that the performance issues are already addressed. 

The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation. 

The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays. 

I have been using the product for three to four years. 

The solution is stable. 

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise's pricing is reasonable. 

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise has helped us save time by five to ten percent. The tool has helped us improve product quality. 

We use the TruClient feature, and it has helped us reduce scripting. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

We use the solution for client service applications, mostly web-based applications. There are a lot of service conversions needed in terms of Apple to Apple talking or using with a protocol. If you need what they're offering then I think LoadRunner is a good tool. And it's from HP. Primary use cases are creating code-based operations for the latest updates, and API calls if we are in corporate. I'm a QA leader and we are customers of Micro Focus LoadRunner. 

I think correlation is one of the important features. Correlation, parameterization, those kind of features make things easier.

It's a very expensive tool so I think licensing costs could be reduced. I think their monitoring services in real time could be improved and made more user friendly. 

I've been using this solution for nearly 15 years. 

This is a stable product - I've dealt with it over the past 15 years and it's stable.

It's a scalable product in terms of it's running or technology wise. 

Their tech support is pretty good. They try to document things and they are organized. I would say I've had good experience with them. 

This is a heavy-duty tool, so it's not a one-click installation. But I think it's comparatively easier with the documentation they provide.

I would suggest that if you have a site that needs to be used by a lot of people or if it's for enterprise applications where consumption is high, then it's a good tool. Otherwise, if there are fewer users or not a lot of load, then I would say that other tools might be handy. If you require performance-oriented applications, then it's a good tool. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.