What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?

I don't have any challenges whatsoever with the integration. The AI part is something that may be ahead of where I am with the OpenText LoadRunner side because what we have been looking at now is the introduction of ALM Octane instead. There is no need to do regular technical maintenance for the solution. I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

LoadRunner is user-friendly and adaptable for enterprise-scale testing, with easy knowledge transfer to newcomers. However, its resource consumption and cost are considerable drawbacks. I recommend it with one remark. Please hire a professional consultant if you don't have in-house resources for the first test. So, with the right consultancy, LoadRunner is a powerful OpenText tool. If you don't have the right consultancy, you'll be using it at 10 to 20% maximum, and then it's a waste of money. Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I rate OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise a ten out of ten.

LoadRunner Developer’s shift-left process is becoming more and more important for us. It's a newer initiative for Costco. We are pushing towards it. We already have teams that have started doing lower-level performance testing. It'll continue to get adopted more and more as we push it out. We are using the solution's TruClient feature. I work in administration. The people who work on scripting have some technical issues with TruClient's scripting. There are a number of scripts out there. LoadRunner Enterprise has helped streamline our testing processes. It is the only method of doing some of our testing processes. We find it very valuable. Streamlining our testing processes has helped us through further improvements and validation that our systems are performing at the high level that we need them to perform. LoadRunner Enterprise has reduced our workload. Without it, we wouldn't have performance testing, and things would break a lot more. LoadRunner Enterprise has helped improve our product quality. If it weren't there, things would break. The fact that we're still using LoadRunner is a pretty good sign. LoadRunner Enterprise has helped us save time. Without it, things would break a lot more. Our primary experience with performance testing is with LoadRunner. I have played around with some other applications, and all of them have ups and downs. LoadRunner provides ease of use and a nice and concise interface. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I would rate LoadRunner Enterprise a ten out of ten. It is a product that I have known as being a market-leading tool in that space for years. Being more of a software engineer and architect, testing tools are not something that I am intimately familiar with, but everything I am hearing from the guys that do that work is that it is the tool to use. It is great to have it in the OpenText family.

We use the TruClient feature. We use TruClient for understanding webpage rendering. It's TruClient's strong suit. TruClient has been very important to us. Without it, we won't understand the JavaScript rendering the users see on the front end. TruClient is a great option if using standard HTTP is either unsuccessful or time-prohibited. LoadRunner Enterprise has definitely helped streamline our testing processes. We're using it almost 24/7 to support a host of platforms across the enterprise. If we didn't have it in place, the organization would have hundreds of performance-related incidents every year. However, we don't have them because we're catching them. Streamlining our testing processes allows us to meet business demands and keep up with very aggressive schedules. LoadRunner has a lot of capability straight out of the box. One of the best things about it is the automation that's built into it. It has a lot of automation and functionality that many other tools don't have. LoadRunner Enterprise has helped me save time. LoadRunner Enterprise has helped improve our product quality by ensuring transparency between product, delivery, and test. With load testing, we can accurately inform the business of how the platform is doing. By doing so, we can ensure that expectations between product, business, and IT are aligned. If they're not, those issues can be addressed before we go to production. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

The main challenge we resolved using the product is ensuring the functional equivalency of applications that migrated from old to new environments. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise has streamlined our testing process. It acted as a single source for the test cases and criteria. We could pull reports and show the management that the system is tested and can be taken live. The solution has helped us save time. Before OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, a customer did not have a repository of test cases. Hence, they needed to redevelop the previously used test cases. However, the solution helps to reuse test cases. I rate the product an eight out of ten.

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise helped us overcome debugging and scripting challenges. It has enabled us to manage projects. We have a place where we can put our results and scripts. It has streamlined our testing process. The tool has improved productivity and result quality. I use LoadRunner Developer. The tool reduces and makes our lives easier by recording the workflow and helping us identify the correlation. LoadRunner helps us save time. We can create the scripts for dynamic parameterization and automatic correlation in two hours. Earlier, it used to take five to six hours. I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Overall, we are pleased with the solution as it satisfies our requirements and meets our expectations. I would rate it eight out of ten.

A lot of people choose JMeter because it is free. However, JMeter is not as good as LoadRunner. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The solution has all the capabilities. The only area they need to work on is the low-code platform which has started emerging in the market lately. If they could do something in that area, it would be a great overall tool in the market. Right now, it takes a lot of time for me to train people and get them onboarded. However, while I use other tools like NeoLoad, I can easily train my team. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

I give the solution a ten out of ten. Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the best in the market, depending on what it is being used for. For API testing, we can find something cheaper. But the solution is good for that as well. For bigger applications that are Gooey-based, it's the best option. Creating a script depends greatly on the type of application we have. If we have an API system, it will likely take less time to create a script since the developers have likely already set it up for us to use. However, if we have a lengthy application, it may take us days to create a single script. We have between five and ten developers using the solution. I recommend the solution, but it's expensive and only a big company could afford it. A small company wouldn't have the capacity to use the solution or the money to pay for it.

We are customers. If a client has a budget, I would recommend the solution. It is a good tool. However, there are stability issues, and it does have a complex UI. It's good if you have specific protocols and specific requirements. When that is the case, there may be no other tool available. I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

I give the solution a seven out of ten. I recommend that anyone that wants to use the solution first have their requirements written out.

I would definitely recommend LoadRunner for performance testing of any application/system with a wide variety of protocols. It's a great tool for capturing performance bottlenecks and its commendable analysis and reporting. Rating-wise, I would give it a nine on a scale from one to ten. For the virtual user load generator, we see some hiccups here and there when we use it extensively in my system with 16 GB RAM. Sometimes, it causes too much of a load on the system. If this were resolved, I would definitely give it a ten.

I would give LoadRunner Enterprise a rating of nine out of ten.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise at six.

I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise an eight out of ten.

When comparing Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise with the competitors that are coming into the market, I would look for an open-source version of this tool, if possible. The cost is one thing that is preventing people from using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. Some of the upcoming protocols are coming into the market, some of these are not supported by Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. I can easily choose NeoLoad and complete what I need to with it. Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is still evolving in the coming DevOps sector, once the CICD architecture comes in, we will see more changes. I presume it is not up to date from a CICD support perspective. I rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise a five out of ten.

It's a tool that really helps you when you have a very varied landscape and you have technologies and platforms and infrastructure which include legacy and new ones, with a mix of SaaS. LoadRunner has the ability to support different protocols and that serves the purpose. It's a one-stop solution. We wanted to integrate LoadRunner reports to a time-series database, an open-source tool like Grafana. We learned a lot from that integration. The integration of the solution into a CI pipeline is something that we haven't explored widely, but it's an area we are looking forward to investing in soon. We are exploring more in terms of the integration capabilities of LoadRunner with other tools. Performance testing is a specialized skill and we don't have too many using the solution, but we do have a couple of professionals who have been doing performance testing for more than 15 years. The rest have been into performance testing for the last seven to eight years, with exposure to different protocols and technologies. We are aiming to scale up and cross-train them in multiple protocols so that we can reach some of our goals without any hindrance this year. We would like to have less dependency, in terms of expertise, on specific technologies and protocols.

At this time, we do not make use of LoadRunner Developer Integration. We are thinking of migrating to the latest version of LoadRunner, which probably has the LoadRunner Developer functionality. Once we upgrade to the new version, we plan to use it. We are not currently using any of the cloud functionality offered by Micro Focus. In our organization, we do have multiple applications that are hosted on the cloud, and we do test them using LoadRunner Enterprise, but we do not use any component of LoadRunner Enterprise that is hosted on the cloud. I am an active member in several online communities, including LinkedIn, that are specific to performance testing. As such, I have seen different experts using different tools, and the overall impression that I get from LoadRunning Enterprise is that it offers good value for the price. The level of coverage in terms of scripting and analysis had helped to solidify their position as a market leader, at least a decade ago. Nowadays, while others have closed the gap, it is still far ahead of other tools in the space. My advice is that if LoadRunner Enterprise can be made to fit within the budget, it is the best tool for performance testing and load testing. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Proper training is important. If you have teams that want to use the product, you need to ensure that they go through the right training. Get your guys to sit through the LoadRunner training or get someone experienced to train them. Make sure that your team trains before they go and apply the system because LoadRunner is not actually something that you do, plug-and-play. You do need a little bit of configuration, and it's not for beginners. It is meant for people with at least an intermediate understanding of networks, and an intermediate understanding of performance application — you need to have that. I would say it's always important to ensure that you work very closely with the development team. To get the best out of the tool, you need to have a solid collaboration. When you want to troubleshoot, you want to review or uncover the performance issues; you need to make sure that you work quite closely with the development teams as well. On a scale from one to ten, I would give LoadRunner a rating of eight. We have not used it for global distributed testing, and we also don't know its full capability from a mobile perspective. That's an area that I cannot comment on yet, so I'm reserving my judgment on that. That's the reason why I am giving it an eight. From my perspective, there's still a gap in terms of the area that LoadRunner is being marketed to. Its biggest strength, in my opinion, is the reporting. If they could keep the reporting, but give it a lighter engine to generate virtual users, that would be perfect.

Make sure you know what your use case is before you buy it. On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine. It's very good at doing what it needs to do. I think that the reporting needs a little bit of work, but that's pretty much it. I think every reporting system needs a little bit of work, so take that with a grain of salt.

My advice to people considering LoadRunner is that if you are going to use the product, use it as part of your everyday application development lifecycle. Do not just use it right at the end, because it gives you some great insights during the development phase as well as at the end. You will end up writing cleaner application code with it. So bake the use of LoadRunner into your full application life cycle. On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this solution as between and eight and nine-out-of-ten. I could be slightly biased, having worked for the company that sells it. But it is a very good, professional solution. With the latest updates, it is very comprehensive and one of the best products of the sort. Let's say nine-out-of-ten because there is always room for improvement.

When it comes to organization, people compare automation testing with performance testing. Automation testing is something that is very easily integrated within an agile and faster delivery framework. The scripting in automation testing is robust because it is GUI-based. When it comes to performance testing, it is request-response-based and the scripts are not very robust in some of the application platforms. Because of that, people feel that performance testing is a bottleneck and it takes a lot of time. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Make sure that you get someone who knows what they are doing before you get into it. I have learned that unless you put the time in at the beginning, it doesn't do the job. You have to learn how it works and how to write the scripts for it to run. If you don't do that, then you are just wasting your time. It runs a script and gathers data points. You have to make sure that your script tells it which data points to gather based on what you are looking for. If you don't do that then it won't work. If you are looking for a specific product, make sure that you have picked the product that is going to be right for you. Don't just assume this one is going to do the load testing you want, as there are hundreds of load testing systems out there. It's a good product and it does what it says it will do but it doesn't work outside of those realms. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We're partners with Micro Focus. I haven't found many products in this particular niche that have compared to JMeter and BlazeMeter tools. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I suggest other potential users review Micro Focus. If the client has the budget for the solution, I'd recommend it. If they don't have a budget, I'd suggest they instead opt to look a freeware solution, and I'd suggest they evaluate JMeter or BlazeMeter.

The advice I would give to someone considering this product is that they should try LoadRunner first before they start using Performance Center — especially if it is a small company. They need to know and be able to compare LoadRunner to Performance Center in the right way. After you have used LoadRunner then compare Performance Center. If they are part of a small company and they expect to expand they will know the difference. If they are already a very big company, they can save some money by using Performance Center directly. We are quite a big company, so Performance Center makes sense for us. On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Performance Center as an eight. It is only this low because we have had so many problems here installing it and upgrading it. Sometimes it runs very slow just to set up tests, or it just crashes. Like when setting up a spike test, you start using the spike test process and it suddenly crashes after you have almost finished everything. Executing the tests were a lot easier and more stable in LoadRunner. You can manage to make Performance Center work, but you have to be patient.