OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is an on-premises solution, but we have our own internal cloud where we have deployed it. However, it is considered an on-premise solution.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional can be used on any application. This is a tool we use to create a concurrent transaction on an application. We can do traffic simulating for end-users behavior. 

The most valuable features of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional are the separate module for scripting, execution analysis, and integration with a lot of new things pipeline areas. They keep updating their releases. Recently, they have released different versions, such as the professional and enterprise. They're coming up with new features which are good. 

The most important aspect of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is the security of the tool and what it provides as a result.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional can improve the implementation of digital areas, such as digital testing, UI and native application, and native mobile applications.

I have been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for approximately 14 years.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is a stable solution.

The scalability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is good. I can scale up and it has wide support for different protocols. Pretty powerful in terms of logins to different pipelines, such as Gen Kings.

We have approximately 30 to 40 customers and approximately 300 users using the solution.

For the Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is not possible for them to provide us with a resolution because there is a bottleneck from the solution side, but they are proactive.

The initial setup of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is simple for me. However, I understand new people have to learn, and I would still rate it simple. The deployment took approximately 30 to 45 minutes. Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is straightforward but the Enterprise version is complicated.

There is an annual license required to use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional. There are not any additional costs other than the licensing fees to use it.

My advice to others is that this solution is good and they should 

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

We are it using the solution mainly for the REST-based API.

It is quite a good tool. It supports a medical protocol which we tried to explore in other products, but none of them had. It is very difficult to get data tool support in these solutions but LoadRunner does support them, it is a big advantage. Overall, It is pretty simple, easy to use.

My team members predominately used the product to do development but I don't think it needs anything in a way of improvements.

I have been using the solution for over two years.

We didn't see any challenge with this product at all.

The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it is quite scalable.

We found the support to be good. Whenever there is an issue with anything, within 24-hours we get an answer. If we want someone from their team to look into an issue, they will log it, analyze it and get back to us.

The installation took around 20 to 30 minutes.

We did the installation and deployment of the product ourselves. It's simple and pretty easy. We were using the LRP, we did not need any technical guidance for anything. We simply installed the configuration, then a few clicks, and we were done.

There is a licensing cost that is expensive. There is also the Enterprise version of the software which allows other features that the Professional does not, such as, license sharing.

We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market.

I rate OpenText LoadRunner Professional an eight out of ten.

I am primarily using LoadRunner to perform tests on HTTP and HTTPS.

This solution provides a one-stop-shop for what we need.

I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful.

You can do live monitoring, which is very useful compared to Apache JMeter.

This is good for a large-scale organization because it supports a lot of protocols.

One of the problems with LoadRunner was always outside sharing. However, now that they are offering a cloud version, this may already work well. 

The infrastructure support can be improved because there are a lot of limitations with the hardware that you can use.

I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator.

I have been using LoadRunner for about ten years.

This solution is very stable. We use it very frequently.

LoadRunner is scalable, although there are some limitations that depend on the application type. That is where you need to scale by adding more load generators. 

We have approximately ten people who are using LoadRunner in the company.

Technical support for LoadRunner is quite good. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

In addition to LoadRunner, I was also using Apache JMeter for about three years. JMeter does not support live monitoring unless you use a plugin. However, JMeter has better infrastructure support than LoadRunner.

My company did not switch from JMeter to LoadRunner. They already had already purchased LoadRunner licenses. There are a lot of inherent limitations with JMeter, including analytics capabilities.

The initial setup for the standalone version is very simple and very easy compared to a solution like Apache JMeter. If you have the licenses then you can get started very soon.

It takes perhaps 20 minutes to deploy, depending on the machine configuration. Only one person is required because it has an auto-install package.

For the standalone version of LoadRunner, you don't need help from consultants. However, for something like a performance center then you need a consultant to help.

The licensing fees are based on the number of users. There is also a free community edition, but it depends on what protocol you're using and how many users you want. Essentially, the licensing fees are based on the need.

This is a very mature tool that is always improving and has very good support as well. More or less, they're always trying to revolve their limitations.

In order to use LoadRunner, you need specific skills. In order to use tools of this type then you need performance engineering skills. My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is first to be clear about your use case and what you are trying to do. Develop and follow up on your own performance-testing strategy before implementing LoadRunner. That said, I highly recommend this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use this product to test our web application that is used for internet banking.

The most important feature for us is that it supports a lot of protocols because we support all of them, including HTTP, FTP, mainframe, and others. This means that it is very scalable.

I would like to see easier integration with our CICD pipeline.

The product is pretty heavy and should be more lightweight.

I would like to see a browser extension where we can start the development. This would be helpful because right now, this solution is good for UTM integration and performance testing, but if we want to scale then it is difficult.

I have only been using LoadRunner Professional for a short time because I just joined the company, and I used to work with open-source technology.

We have six or seven people using this product.

As we have just begun using it, we have note let had to contact support.

The initial setup is pretty easy. This product is Java-based and you just have to add the independent libraries and dependencies. It is more of a client-server based architecture

This is not a cheap product.

I have primarily used JMeter, which is open-source and free to use.

I have also used Silk Performer, although that was a long way back.

The suitability of one solution over another is very dependant on the use case. When it comes to performance testing, it is very specific to the use case. It depends on your goal and what you want to do.

These days, testing is not a separate activity. It's more about how fast you can quickly deliver and time to market. This is a product that I can recommend, although it depends on the use case. The first question has to be one of budget because LoadRunner is not cheap. Things differ from company to company. At the same time, not all of the free tools can perform all of the functions. It is based on requirements.

If they're a small company, such as a startup e-commerce company, then they might be better off implementing an open-source product.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

There are actually some cool features in LoadRunner where we can have multiple users at the same time. Some of the help features in the communities, what HP has are pretty good. We have quick turnaround time for the support as well, sometimes. It is helping our application to performance test and load test. I didn't use much of the tools, and have been using these tools since eight, nine years now, so I'm more into that. I see HP is constantly improving the features of the tool.

We have the manpower, the resources. One of the thing which I realized is let's say if you have another tool which is equal or there are more comparable abilities, but it's kind of hard to get resources for those tools who are skilled. I see a bunch of resources easily available in the market for LoadRunner and HP products and I feel like this could be possible because it's kind of industry leader in the testing tools or something.

There are a lot of people using LoadRunner I can say that. The issues what we get from doing performance testing, some of the issues are not specific to tool, but because we have such a huge community in HP tools we kind of get some solutions easily from the outside world as well in the communities I guess.

The demo that I've seen today, it sounds pretty cool but it still has some limitations I guess. They thought it is only limited to web and mobile right now, and it's currently not supported for all the products of what we have in performance center. We'll all have to wait and see how they come up with full version of the features.

I would like to see the features what they are saying in the demo for StormRunner, if they can have the features of Performance Center and LoadRunner combined, put it in StormRunner, that would be awesome because StormRunner looks pretty good the way they are explaining, it's like all one stop shop where you can just manage everything from one webpage but it's not complete, it doesn't look like it's complete. If we can get all those other features included in the new one, then that would be awesome.

I believe it's good. When it first started I didn't realize it was so good, but over the years I'm seeing that it's getting more and more stable. It looks like HP is putting some efforts to make it more stable.

Scalability, I think with the previous versions maybe I was not sure but the new version which I'm seeing, and the cool features what they are showing off, I think scalability is very good, you could scale up the tool within no time.

It's on and off at times, depends on what tech guy you are working with. Some of them I find very technical strong and they were able to help, but it has to go through some processes. You have a basic layer and if it's not resolvable there, it goes to the next level so it has a process, which may take some time.

I'm involved in catering the needs of my company's performance testing for all the applications. We use a variety of HP products but our team, where I'm concerned more is HP LoadRunner. We are also upgrading into Performance Center as we speak. We are more into HP LoadRunner.

LoadRunner has easy usability right now, and it's pretty much documented on the features, and has a how-to-do use of videos, learning materials. It's easy to use once you have some basic training and you can get along easily. It will give your company return of investment I believe if you're in invest in it.

The breadth of protocol support means that you can get LoadRunner (and its sister product Performance Center) to test almost any application with useful built-in functions. The programmable scripts allow for the creation of sophisticated reliable and robust frameworks and scripts. The API potentially allows you to extend the tool to support applications that it cannot support, but how to do this is not well documented or supported.

The analysis capability is simply best of breed as it allows you to take data from any source and correlate it with your results. In other tools, analysis is more problematic and therefore a bit of a black art.

We use LoadRunner and its sister product Performance Center as two of the key pieces in our corporate tool kit along with other tools in delivering performance engineering services. Some of our customers insist on using this, and for them, it has helped administer payroll, deliver luggage in airports, and enabled them to support tax returns.

At Infuse, we have integrated such tools very early into early performance validation at the unit test level. This enables our customers to find defects early on in development, and combined with performance modelling in design, enables them to fix performance issues early and cheaply.

HP as a company has been slow to move to support modern technologies e.g. Oracle ADF. HP took a long time to support the protocol. The support could be better.

I have, as a performance engineer, been using LoadRunner since 1999, in multiple different versions. As a business we have been using it since 2002, and it features in around 80% of our performance engineering assignments along with other tools.

The tool itself is very easy to set up and install the various components. 90% of the time there are no deployment issues. The biggest issue really, is setting up the connections from the load generators to the controller component. However, these are are normally network related issues that, with the correct input from the network/infrastructure team, can quickly be resolved.

No, the application is very robust. The only time issues are experienced is when it is running for extra-long period soak tests, e.g. for 24 hours. Then, only on odd occasions, does the system sometimes experience issues with results files, which become corrupt. Usually this is because of issues during the test with the AUT causing very large results files being generated.

No, the application is scalable. Additional load testing capacity can be added quickly and easily by adding another load generator. Also, some GUI based scripting protocols such as TruClient do utilize large amounts of memory and CPU power, which needs to be planned for carefully if running tests over long periods with lots of users.

Average, to occasionally good, but no better.

HP LoadRunner technical support is adequate, with implementation issues and functional problems that may arise. However, it doesn’t include scripting support, but there is a wealth of information on numerous public forums regarding LoadRunner to assist most technical issues which helps.

As an independent vendor we use JMeter, The Grinder and Oracle Application Tool Suite’s load test module, but all of these tools don’t have the breadth of supporting protocols and so are not always suitable for our client’s applications and systems being tested. They are also sub-optimal from an analysis perspective, but do a good job.

The setup for LoadRunner is straightforward as the installations are via wizards, and this makes them quick and easy. Make sure though, that the instructions are followed as written, and be aware that virus detection software can adversely affect the installation. The most complex area is in ensuring connectivity between the load generators and the controller, which may involve firewall changes as load generator machines should be located where the users are situated or externally on the cloud. The complexity is often getting permissions from the IT support teams and explaining what you are doing rather than changing the firewall itself and setting it up. It requires good communication skills.

We implement it ourselves.

Considering the performance issues that we have found and prevented moving into production on client sites is enough to show that there is a positive ROI with the tool. This is despite the initial expense, as assets produced can be re-used on each implementation reducing the cost for subsequent releases.

The set up costs depend on the protocol type (there are standard and premium types), the number of virtual users being simulated, the terms, and the number of, load generator machines that are needed. Then there is an annual support maintenance fee that allows for free upgrade and access to the support functions.

We would evaluate all the tools on the market for a customer before making a recommendation. We do an evaluation based on the customers dynamics/culture, budget, and delivery methodology, and then offer our client a choice.

Other tools though don’t provide the breadth of support for different protocols and so this tool is limited to the applications it compatible with. It also has more basic reporting and analysis features. But then other tools are also generally cheaper.

it is a best of breed product with some minor frustrations around product support.

All of our installations are on-premises at the moment.  

One of the most valuable features to me is that LoadRunner is familiar. I have worked with it for so long that I know where everything is and I know how it is supposed to work.  

But focusing on actual program features, all I can say is it has good protocol coverage.  

I have not had a really good look at the newest versions of LoadRunner. The problem I have always had with LoadRunner — and even more so with Performance Center — is that it is not very good with agile delivery and it is very difficult to integrate. Software engineers who have been working in agile delivery have been saying this for some time, and have been having success with alternatives.

Also, Performance Center has historically been quite unreliable and difficult. It tends to fail at collation. I think that is because of the Load Runner architecture that Performance Center inherited. Everything waits until the end of a test to collate and it does not always work out well. I know that Micro Focus has done something about that in the new version. But that is the worst thing that happens: with LoadRunner or Performance Center you run a big critical test and you can't get the results.  

I have personally been using LoadRunner and Performance Center for 20 years. I think it's been the backbone of performance testing for 20+ years and must be given credit for helping establish the discipline.

Stability has been an issue. It has really been a big problem for us with Performance Center in particular. Crashing or exiting during collation is not acceptable.   

We have not been totally satisfied with the scalability. We tend to have more issues with Performance Center. The more you try to grow use with it on-prem, the more headaches you have. Often working with LoadRunner and smaller environments is more reliable. We believe the SaaS solution might be better because you have got centralized management.  

Most of my experience is in the early days of Mercury, they were brilliant. They were really good and helped resolve issues. I have not been using them recently.  

Right now we use LoadRunner and Performance Center depending on what we believe are best practices for different situations. We are considering evaluating other options as well, including LoadRunner SaaS.

The two Micro Focus products are interesting to compare. LoadRunner is very easy to set up. Performance Center needs an expert. I can install LoadRunner in minutes by myself. To do the installation properly with Performance Center needs a specialist and takes weeks.  

Plenty of people seem to have installed Performance Center in a couple of days, but when they use it they usually have problems. You really need to do it properly. I do plan to have a look at the newer versions, and maybe those implementations will be smoother.  

Advice that I would give people considering LoadRunner is that I would recommend exploring other tools first or at least in comparison. There are lots of really good open-source or even just cheaper alternatives. Depending on your use case, the other options might be much better. LoadRunner has broad protocol coverage. Sometimes you have got no choice but to go with a solution because of what it can do. But I think the days of LoadRunner being the only solution out there for this kind of testing have gone. There are some very good competitors now and where the competitor can do the job, you will save money.  

On the scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional as about a six. I have not taken a good look at the latest version, but my current experience with the version of the product we use has not been great.  

We primarily use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional to create scripts and run various types of performance tests, as well as to analyze the results.

The most valuable features of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional are scripting and executing the tests.

Instead of having too many graphs and tabs, use the analysis section to get a more simplified defect analysis.

In the next release, I wanted to make the defect analysis part easier and more compact to view in the tool itself. For example, if there are defects in the test or some issues in the test, I would like the analysis to be more detailed and easier to understand.

I am using LoadRunner, but it's a company-sponsored program, I have not purchased the tool.

I have been working with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for eight years on many different projects.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is a stable solution. 

We did not have any issues with the stability, or the performance of this solution.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is a scalable product.

Our company has a large number of users. This solution is used on a daily basis by approximately 500 people.

I have not interacted with technical support.

This is my company that purchases the tool, and once an issue arrives, we will contact them and they will connect with technical support.

The contact is with our IT department.

Previously, I have not used any other solution.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

I would rate the initial setup a four out of five, it was simple.

I am not aware of the pricing.

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