We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional and ReadyAPI Performance based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Load Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is a good and stable tool."
"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 valuable features of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional are scripting and executing the tests."
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"Very useful for finding out how the system responds to load, stress, and normal situations, as well as benchmarking with other industry competitors. It also improved our response time, memory delegation, and CPU delegation. In addition, we used LoadRunner to optimize our database and website."
"I am impressed with the tool's correlation function."
"The initial setup and installation of the software were very easy and straightforward."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation."
"We find the product to be scalable."
"The performance and reporting of this solution have been its most valuable features."
"ReadyAPI automation can help us validate the functionality of most web services, allowing us to find out the exact number of defects before deployment to the user interface."
"It stores good reports, as in, improved reports if compared with the SoapUI. It also has in-built security. You just need to switch and check the security testing. My team has never used it, but I know ReadyAPI provides those facilities as well."
"We can scale."
"he initial deployment process is easy."
"It's like a centralized interface that allows us to increase the quality of our APIs."
"The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays."
"In terms of resource management, you need a lot of high capacity boxes if you need to generate a load of 1,000 or 2,000 users."
"The pricing model, selling model, and business model need to be adjusted. For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost."
"The monitoring technology in LoadRunner could be improved. It depends on another tool called SiteScope, but they only took a part of the features of SiteScope. They need to improve on that."
"LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved."
"The flexibility could be improved."
"Improvement wise, the pipeline should be enabled. It should be embedded as part of the tool itself rather than going with third-party tools. Monitoring should be more effective as well."
"There is room for improvement of the pilot processing, the dump analysis, and forwarding results based on the dump analysis. We have a generator, root controller, different agents, and an analyzer, so all of these are very important when it comes to LoadRunner."
"It is very slow sometimes."
"This solution could be improved by offering artificial AI testing in addition to API testing. For example, we would like to have machine learning testing because when test applications, manual work could be completed automatically using this functionality."
"We need some time to understand and configure the solution."
"I'd not sure if they have the same level of documentation for performance and security testing."
"The solution’s interface could be improved."
"This is an area for improvement with the tool. We unnecessarily use JMeter for some website testing, which we would like to avoid by introducing this tool for API and load testing because it provides load testing features."
"I want the solution to be able to monitor Apache Kafka activity as well."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 3rd in Load Testing Tools with 77 reviews while ReadyAPI Performance is ranked 8th in Load Testing Tools with 7 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while ReadyAPI Performance is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ReadyAPI Performance writes "Straightforward to install with the ability to add multiple assertions but the price is too high". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and IBM Rational Performance Tester, whereas ReadyAPI Performance is most compared with SmartBear LoadNinja and Apache JMeter. See our OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs. ReadyAPI Performance report.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors and best Performance Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.