OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

We primarily use the solution for performance testing and performance tuning.

I like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good.

Pricing should be lowered on the solution. Right now it's quite expensive.

The solution uses a lot of memory and then it dies. It's difficult to work with the solution sometimes when you run a scenario it dies. They need to make the solution lighter somehow.

If the correlation can be adjusted so that it's a dynamic correlation, it could be a little bit better and it would help a lot of users.

I've been using the solution for ten years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. I don't see a problem with scaling, because you can schedule multiple instances.

Technical support has been good so far.

We've basically used LoadRunner since the beginning; we find it more user-friendly than other tools.

The initial setup is easy. It's not difficult.

I handled the implementation myself. How log deployment takes depends on the application. It could take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks.

We started using the solution when it was version 8.2 and now we are on version 10.6. We use the on-premises deployment model. 

I would recommend the solution to others. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

The ability to do multithreading. That's available in any performance testing tool, but the number of protocols that this particular tool supports has been very good. The support and the stability of those protocols are amazing. That's why I like LoadRunner.

We use it as a performance testing tool. Obviously, performance testing helps with improving your application's performance, maintaining the stability, and the availability of systems. It's very easy to use. Sometimes, in very rare cases, we also use it for functional testing.

I would like to see the Internet protocols come into LoadRunner because that's the future. Most organizations are going to be heading that way, so I would love to see that added.

If the support of the protocols was the same throughout the other protocols and it was there evenly, then I would rate the product higher.

The stability: It's the best part of the LoadRunner platform.

It's highly scalable. LoadRunner can connect to any number of agents, and you can have multiple controllers, which is obviously a different licensing model.

We have used the tech support. There are multiple levels of it. Most of our tickets get resolved at the very first layer. Very rarely do we have to escalate the tickets to the R&D, but that hasn't been very often. The product has been working well.

We had to promote performance testing at some clients because they weren't doing anything at all. That was one use case. The second use case was they were developing some other tools, and coming from a stability standpoint and also from a quality pedigree standpoint, LoadRunner stands out. It's very easy to find resources, so it all adds up.

We ended up with LoadRunner because it has a big market share. Our company has been using LoadRunner for over 11 years, although we have used other products as well. But in terms of stability of the product and ease of finding resources, ultimately it comes down to the resources. The clients are going to be the ones using the tool. You're not going to find a lot of resources with the other company performance testing tools and resources are very low on the open source tools, so that's why we pitched LoadRunner.

I have been involved with the initial setup at multiple organizations. Because we are a consulting firm, we go and talk to different bigger organizations and we do their setups as well.

The setup of LoadRunner itself is very straightforward. It's just that different clients provide different hardwares, and that's the hardest part.

Yes, because our clients wanted us to consider other solutions, and that's fair enough. You cannot be biased just on one tool, so yes, we did propose some open source tools as well some licensed tools as well, along with LoadRunner.

Other solutions considered:

• Cecilia, which is primarily a research installation tool, but it also has performance ability.
• JMeter, on the open source front
• LoadUI, from SmartBear
• IBM Green Hat
• Parasoft

Don't make a blind decision. Don't just say, "Pick LoadRunner, because we are telling you to."

Look at the other solutions as well. I'm pretty sure they will soon enough determine that Loadrunner is the market leader, and there is a good reason for it.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: Our company looks for the region and their attention to consider our recommendations in terms of which tools to buy, how to go about testing, and how to avoid testing. You don't want to test too much, as well. These are some of the things. If we get any hints on whether the management is more inclined to work with us. That's what we look for.

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.

The most valuable feature of LoadRunner is its ability to simulate multiple uses at the same time. That's the most important thing and the primary reason I use it.

I don't believe that there are any other good tools for performance testing. It's either use LoadRunner for performance testing or don't do performance testing at all.

We have a lot of issues right now with the Citrix client, so this should be improved.

Deployment has been fine.

We've had no issues with stability.

Scalability is not that important for LoadRunner since we don't have many people working on it at the same time.

Quite good, though sometimes it depends on who you’re dealing with. Sometimes you have bad luck and get a guy who doesn't know much about it, is new, or is in training, but most of the time technical support is fine.

It was rather easy and you can do it yourself.

For functional testing, we look for alternatives sometimes, especially for the execution part.

I don't think there's a better product for all systems.

We primarily use the solution for a variety of cases; the use case depends on the application.

The load testing, reporting, and scripting features are all valuable features.

The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive.

The solution should offer more monitoring features.

The stability of the solution is good.

The scalability is good.

Technical support is fine.

I'm quite experienced with the solution, so I haven't had any issues with the initial setup.

There's the licensing fee, and then additional fees on top of that as well.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

• Auto Correlation: It saves time while designing the performance testing scripts.

• Extended Reporting: It saves time in report designing and also, provides the option to select the quantum of information to represent.

I have performed performance testing for a number of clients using HPE LoadRunner. It has helped them in finding the performance bottlenecks, capacity issues before deployment.

The extended features are available but the high pricing is an issue.

I am using HPE LoadRunner for six years.

I have found some stability issues for one of the website. After a number of concurrent users, the web server was unable to handle the load.

I have experienced scalability issues.

HPE provides excellent technical support. The process is lengthy and time- consuming, but the quality is excellent.

I have used Apache JMeter too, but it supports limited protocols. HPE LoadRunner's protocol support is wide.

The initial setup is easy; HPE Documentation is one of the biggest benefits.

The price is a bit high but if you procure the HPE LoadRunner you will get many benefits such as excellent technical support, a wide range of supported protocols, a great document library and easy help from the technical communities for your problems.

We evaluated Apache JMeter.

I will suggest to first understand what is your requirement and then list down the tools available, which can help in delivery. We need to make an appropriate choice by keeping the budget in mind. If pricing is not an issue then choose LoadRunner, else evaluate other options.

Language Support
Analysis
Monitoring

It expedites the process of creating test scripts

Network monitoring

5 years

No.

No.

No.

Excellent

Good.

Little complex

JMeter