OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

It's got a lot of protocols that support all our business requirements, such as Java, HTTP, and Citrix. It gives us one tool that supports all this technology.

We don't have to work on another platform as we only have to learn one tool. There's a lot of information, help, and best practices available. It's a market-leading tool so there are lots of people with knowledgeable experience. Our employees are productive from day one.

Because we're a telecommunications company with millions of subscribers, we run very high volume tests for 24-48 hours. LoadRunner has been very, very stable during these tests and has gotten us results. It gives us expert diagnoses of our tests with very detailed, in-depth analyses.

We'd like for it to incorporate a tool for ordering module that would work with our proprietary in-house ordering module scripting protocol.

We have no issues with deployment.

It's very stable.

It scales very, very well.

They're very good. We have issues, we contact them, and they help us solve the issues.

Setup was very straightforward. We installed, applied the licenses, and started using it.

There is Neotys NeoLoad and SOASTA CloudTest, but LoadRunner is the best.

I would definitely recommend using LoadRunner. Use the latest two client protocols for object scripting.

• It allows you to create your own customized code.
• It provides an analysis report after running a test scenario.
• It supports maximum protocols.
• It's user-friendly.

It generates reports in a format that's very easy to understand for both our own internal use and other audiences. It supports Citrix and SAP protocols, which is very helpful for our clients to understand bottlenecks if there are any on their network.

It should support GWT and mobile testing, including network virtualization.

I've used it for eight years.

We didn't encounter any issues during deployment.

We haven't encountered any stability issues.

We haven't encountered any issues while scaling.

I'd say that customer service is not good.

Technical support is also not good.

I used NeoLoad, but it does not support Citrix, so we chose LoadRunner.

Initial setup was not that difficult.

We did the implementation through an in-house team.

My advice is for you to have a load generator machine that has a good configuration for handling large volumes of users.

It is very costly, but LoadRunner works perfectly. It fits our needs in the way we use it, but you should make sure your use justifies the cost.

We have only web-based services, mobile testing in scope, and the user load is maximum 1000, so we could have used NeoLoad, but there were lots of other factors in switching.

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.

Enables us to test most of the products and projects that we have across all the different technologies, without having to look at other tools.

It allows us to get better reliability, quicker, for the products and solutions. That means fewer critical performance issues when the product goes to market. 

Probably integrations. We still have some issues with integration with things like SiteScope which, obviously, being another HPE product should be very straightforward, but there are always issues around that.

We would like to see more integrations and easier integrations. We have other products that we have integrations with, other third-party products, which seem to be straightforward, ALM and JIRA for example. But for integration between HPE products, we would like to see that go a bit more smoothly.

About 12 years.

it's stable. It's been around for a long time. There are no real issues, no defects or anything.

Scalability is good. There are lots of different options ranging from the freely available versions through to Enterprise and Performance Center. And obviously features like StormRunner Load allow you to scale more quickly and effectively.

We've used technical support quite a lot but not so much lately because it's something we're very familiar with, so we tend to manage it. But when we've used it we've been happy with it.

It was a very long time ago. It was complicated only because of the age of the technology then and the infrastructure we had.

Updating, it's something you just have to plan for, but otherwise it was fairly straightforward.

There are various things we haven't been able to test so we're continuously looking at other vendors to complement it. NeoLoad being one, recently. That's it really.

It covers the most technology, is the most reliable, it gives us the most features.

It's not a 10 out of 10 because of the issues with integrations and it's not quite the one solution, the one-part solution for everything.

I don't know if it's really the product's fault but there are products that, later on, I can't test or can't script against or can't replay against and it's just understanding whether that's a limitation of the tool or a limitation of the product. Part that is design as well as trying to actually script against it.

The feature we've found most valuable for us is the number of protocols available. We test many different commercially available tools or Java applications that prep to Zero OpenJDK, SAP, etc. But we've found that LoadRunner is the only solution that makes all protocols available in one tool. That's the number one benefit for us apart from its monitoring and analytics.

We're a testing department and LoadRunner is a business enabler. Without it, we wouldn't be able to make any money.

The look and feel of StormRunner is very modern and simple to use. If could be a huge improvement if LoadRunner could be the same.

We've been using it since 2002.

The deployment of LoadRunner is issue-free.

Stability depends on what happens during a test. Generally, LoadRunner is quite stable, but sometimes when a test is running, the system will abort it prior to completion even though the results are still accessible.

It also depends on what you want to do with LoadRunner. If you have your own application and you want to load test it, then LoadRunner works fine. But if, like us, you work with customers' applications, you may need more functionalities which LoadRunner may not have.

We're a pretty large department within our company. We have an enterprise license agreement and can simply get more licenses if we need more controllers.

Technical support is challenging. We have premier support for ALM and Performance Center, and we usually get inexperienced engineers when we contact tech support. They always ask for log files. We've been using HP tools for over 10 years and we can fix most problems ourselves. But, if we can't, we have to contact R&D, but that's too long a wait for us to get resolution of our issues.

I mainly use LoadRunner Professional for performance testing of web applications.

LoadRunner Professional's best features are that it's easy to capture scenarios and create scripts for testing, the testing runs smoothly with small resources, and it's very easy to create reports with a variety of indicators.

LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved.

I've been using LoadRunner Professional for over ten years.

LoadRunner Professional is quite stable.

LoadRunner Professional is scalable for small organizations but struggles with more than twenty or thirty agents.

We've also been using IBM Rational Performance Test but have found that LoadRunner is better than the IBM tools.

The initial setup was quite easy, and the deployment took one to two days.

The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user.

I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use. I would rate it eight out of ten.

We have several use cases for this solution. One of them is an automobile website for a huge dealership and we are doing load testing for them. We have projects in the hospitality industry, like hotel bookings. Our projects involve both API testing as well as browser-based load testing.

The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports.

The auto-correlation is much better than the different protocols that it supports.

LoadRunner is easy to use.

The debugging capability is difficult to use and should be improved. This is one area where some of the other products we use are better.

I have been using LoadRunner for five years.

We use LoadRunner on a daily basis and it is good.

It is easier to scale when you have the online, cloud option.

We probably have about 200 users and in the future, we may increase our usage.

We have been in touch with technical support but not very often. They were helpful when we did contact them.

We have used multiple testing tools like Visual Studio and NeoLoad. We have all of these as options. LoadRunner is easier to use and has support for better protocols.

Five to six engineers are required to maintain this solution.

Our in-house team deployed this solution.

NeoLoad was one of the options that we considered, but we ultimately went with LoadRunner.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.