OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

What we like the most is that it integrates with UC. We use UC for our front-end user experience. It's a more realistic user experience. 

We use the script from the user experience and we use the action times from the UC.

If they were able to, I would say that the scalability could be improved. If the costs were not as expensive to upgrade, then we would scale it more.

The initial setup could be simplified.

I would like to see better licensing costs. 

I have been working with this solution for ten years.

It's a stable solution. In the ten years that we have been using it, I have only had an issue once.  We had an issue with the protocol where it didn't support the job. We contacted support.

It's a scalable solution but I think that the Enterprise version is more scalable and more manageable.

It's fine for us, as we only have a few projects a year. On a larger scale, Enterprise would be better than the Professional edition.

When I had contacted technical support they very helpful.

Previous versions were easy to install but we struggled with the LoadRunner Enterprise to get it to work. It was a bit challenging.

LoadRunner Professional is an expensive product.

I like using LoadRunner and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for LoadRunner is a lot of business transactions, physical scenarios, and incoming applications. We use LoadRunner for building and it is very easy to use because of its support for all of the protocols. 

LoadRunner is a very systematic tool for anyone to use. Even someone who is actually a first time user of LoadRunner can actually get a lot of benefit out of the tool.

LoadRunner is an expensive tool, so mostly it is large-sized companies that would prefer LoadRunner over other legacy applications. Being with LoadRunner for so long has given a lot of opportunities for us to experiment with large workloads and even the various different types of extensions. That has actually really benefited the organization.

One of the most valuable features of LoadRunner is the correlation feature which is automated now. All year when I started this with a lot of manual processes, it would actually capture dynamic values, but now these new versions have made it very easy for any newcomer to form whatever you want.

Get in other agitation settings which are very detailed and any tester can go through everything they intend to do, customize their execution patterns. The results are very detailed, presenting a very comprehensive summary that anyone can read and understand.

If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help. My main recommendations for improvement for LoadRunner are:

• It would be good if LoadRunner can categorize the different transactions based on the time taken to do the test, against the transactions first.
• The reports should be a little more comprehensive, more detailed.
• There should be a way to use the default monitoring tool integrated with LoadRunner.

For example, if I have to look for monitoring I have to always integrate an extending tool to LoadRunner and then monitor my task. If LoadRunner is not driving and they can afford to have their own monitoring enabled, that would help.

The LoadRunner report also needs more information other than the straightforward notes, like response time.

To be frank, the earlier version (graded I-5 and graded I-6) was very bad for me. I had a really bad experience on that version. 

One of the problems we had was that one of the scripts that we used to create worked and then there were some bugs that were coming out runtime support. 

The recent version runs well, and actually, LoadRunner has removed those bugs. It's been a good experience.

In terms of driving, LoadRunner is at a level that is a little riddled but otherwise, it's been a good thing. LoadRunner has the kind of features that are much more advanced. The comparison is IIS & NeoLoad. It is very scalable.

Very rarely have I actually wondered how to use tech support because most of the bugs, most of the issues have been resolved by ourselves, through online browsing and materials. I've not really chatted with the LoadRunner tech support.

The setup of LoadRunner is very straightforward. It comes with one retro file which installs all the applications which handle the individual applications also. It's a very easy setup, just that the sizing of the tools is much less. Other than that, the setup is pretty easy.

The three factors we look for in a vendor are: 

1. The pricing 
2. The features
3. The customer support

Definitely, the features are most important to complement the pricing.

Since it's 11 years that the company has been using LoadRunner, there was no other tool on the market that would actually come to the standards of LoadRunner and that is why we had chosen such a tool. 

Look at the options on other software which are not as pricey as LoadRunner. It's true that LoadRunner has all the features and a lot of ways to help, but then not all companies require such extensive tools. That is where I would probably suggest asking the pricing and the features integrated.

At that time it was Silk Performer vs. LoadRunner, and Silk Performer was not optimal enough in terms of its features. We were having a lot of issues trying to create our scripts using Silk Performer and latched upon LoadRunner. We found out that LoadRunner has got a lot more features than Silk Performer and was able to cover the tasks.

I would give LoadRunner around 8 out of 10 in the review, considering the fact, that I know how good the tool is. There are a few areas for improvement, the results, and the monitoring tools. Other than that, I think I'm pretty satisfied with LoadRunner.

We use OpenText LoadRunner Professional to run performance test for codes.

The solution helps my clients save time. It is easier to capture reports and improves product quality. The product helps to identify customer defects during performance tests and reduces workloads. The product has improved my client's user interaction. It has reduced peak load times.

The tool needs to work on capture script feature.

The product is very stable.

OpenText LoadRunner Professional's technical support is good. However, I do not contact them often.

Positive

OpenText LoadRunner Professional is easier to use than IBM. It supports a lot of protocols compared to competitors.

The tool's deployment is easy and can be completed in one to two days.

The solution's pricing is expensive.

Our clients are mostly government agencies and enterprises. I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

In many scenarios, you have to be able to run or put load on your application, and that's what that product does, and it does it pretty well.

In the old days, if you wanted to run load on your application, you would send out an email to 20 people, and you're all trying to do a load on an application. It allows you to scale up hundreds-thousands of users in order to simulate that.

I think it needs to have better reporting. After you do all the load, you really want good reporting.

We've had no issues with the stability.

You scale up based on the amount of load that you want to put on your application. No problem there. They have really good products, and I'm looking forward to the next project, HPE Agile Manager.

Not directly through HPE. We go through HPE's vendor partner, which is Checkpoint Technologies, and they provide excellent technical support.

We used JMeter which is open source, same problem though - reporting is open source. Zero support because it's open source. When we ran into a problem, no help from JMeter. That's why we moved to using LoadRunner.

We have our license pool with 100 concurrent users. I like the concurrent license model. I don't have any problem scaling.

Make sure you take into consideration how much overhead LoadRunner is adding to the load.

I have been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for approximately 11 years.

The stability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is very high. It is the leading tool for stability.

The scalability is good.

The technical support of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. I had an issue with the licensing and their response time is slow. They can improve on this in the future.

I would rate the technical support of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional a three out of five.

The licensing of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. If it can be easier and the concurrent run can be included with the current total number of users, it would be helpful.

I would recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional above all other testing tools.

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

Our primary use case of this solution is to do testing for banks and financial institutions. 

At the moment I like to use the TruClient port, add them and create other versions of TruClient, because TruClient is usually too big to handle heavy loads, so you need to recreate a vamp version for whatever you will need. 

Sometimes I have problems when I want to record a script if the application is a little special, like the login part. I think the TruClient works well and they are developing new things there all the time. So it's getting better. I would like to see an easier way to move things from SoapUI to the same addressed services and postman or something like that. Because the developers will use the other products and then the website and then load them at no cost. So if it was just one step to move from one system to another it would be a great improvement.

The solution is quite stable. I've seen a few bugs of course - they will always be there. That's not a big deal and I just work around it. 

I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients. It eats lots of memory, so usually, I have two or three low generators while I have the one controller. We have had some problems with when we are using a BPM system. In the beginning, it was quite difficult when we changed to this other system and we wanted to connect to the home computer. 

We have about 12 users, mostly testers, working on the solution currently. Then we have two people working in our performance center. 

The technical support is good. Whenever we had a problem, they solved it. 

The initial setup was quite straightforward and it's quite easy to install the standard version. Everything takes less than an hour.

My advice to others would be to look into the application differently. In the next version, I would like to see an easier way to create and use TruClient for development and to move it to another version. They already have this function, but it is not very user-friendly. You cannot do a correlation of things now, because it is on a higher level now. So you have to do a lot of work. 

My rating for this solution is nine out of ten. I've used it a lot, so I guess it's possible to make things better, but it's been around for a while, so I think it's very good.