We performed a comparison between Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise and Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional comes out on top in this comparison. Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is a mature and feature-rich solution with a proven ROI, whereas Enterprise users report being dissatisfied with the product’s ROI.
"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"The solution supports a number of protocols."
"With Performance Center, the version upgrade is easy. You just have to roll out the new patch or the new version."
"We haven't had an outage since we started using the solution."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's best feature is the detailed reporting structure."
"The solution is a very user-friendly tool, especially when you compare it to a competitor like BlazeMeter."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to use and has flexibility that allows it to be used on a variety of applications."
"The fact that you can have tens of thousands of virtual users and just expand an army of load generators to hammer on whatever application you're testing."
"It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"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."
"Paramterization and correlation are important features."
"LoadRunner Professional allowed us to load test potential new payroll solutions that would be implemented throughout the entire organization so that we knew which was best suited to performing well under pressure."
"I appreciate its ability to handle various internal calls and its user-friendly interface."
"I like LoadRunner's ability to use multiple protocols. That's one of the greatest features along with the ability to test service calls between the app and server."
"The solution supports a lot of protocols."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, I need to spend a lot of time training people, while on other low-code or no-code platforms, I need not invest that much time."
"I'd rate the scalability a six out of ten. The main reason is that it's a very expensive application. Other companies might not be able to afford it. For example, if we need to test an application with 10,000 concurrent users, the license can cost a lot of money. That's where OpenText tools shoot themselves in the foot compared to other tools. Because of the price, many companies, like one I used to work for, decided not to renew their licenses and switched to open-source testing tools."
"The price of this solution could be less expensive. However, this category of solutions is expensive."
"It is tough to maintain from the infrastructure side."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise doesn't support some mainframe protocols. We had to build scripts to access the interface."
"The product's scalability must be improved."
"The process of upgrading LoadRunner can be difficult and time-consuming."
"The support team needs to be more coordinated."
"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."
"Sometimes we are not be able to click on some of the buttons due to the screen mismatching and compatibility issues."
"There should be more integration with more open-source platforms."
"Instead of having too many graphs and tabs, use the analysis section to get a more simplified defect analysis."
"I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"The initial start-up of Micro Focus LoadRunner could be improved. When we add 20 or 30 scripts, the refresh is completed one by one. I would like to be able to select all the script at one time, so it can be completed in a single click, reducing the time required."
"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."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad, Apache JMeter and OpenText ALM / Quality Center, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter, IBM Rational Performance Tester and Tricentis Tosca. See our OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance 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.
