We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Cloud and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is having load generators in countries where we don’t have access to them."
"Both the professional and cloud versions of Micro Focus LoadRunner use the same scripting or programming to execute performance modeling operations. This feature allows users to use various programming languages such as Java, C, or C++, which can run within either of the two environments. This flexibility in the programming language is a strong point of the software."
"The TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI."
"The TruClient feature is the most valuable for us. An application with testing can only be scripted using TruClient, so it's part web-based, but it also has its own protocol combined with HTTP and HTML. So many other tools do not recognize this specific proprietary protocol. Using TruClient, we can still create scripts that cover everything that we need to cover."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is that we do not have to accommodate the load-testing infrastructure in our own data center."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to configure browser settings for different operating systems and on different versions without the need to install every single version on each machine and to manage them."
"Now that LoadRunner integrates with Dynatrace and other monitoring tools, it simplifies the process of integration into a company, taking merely five minutes to set up. This ease of integration allows for quick comparison of monitoring and performance results, a feature I highly appreciate."
"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"We can book load generators."
"The product is very user-friendly."
"We implemented through the vendor, who used highly-skilled professionals."
"We have a centralized delivery team and we are able to meet enterprise requirements, which include different types of protocols that are involved, including scripting. The technology supports that and enables us to have a wider range of testing. Enterprise-level testing is something that we are satisfied with."
"For me, the test coverage and the performance and load testing aspects are valuable."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to use and has flexibility that allows it to be used on a variety of applications."
"Reporting and analysis need improvement. Compared to the old school LoadRunner Windows application, the reporting and analysis are mediocre in LoadRunner Cloud."
"The support team provides delayed responses."
"There is a steep learning curve for the product, too."
"Their documentation is not technical enough for us. We would like to have much deeper technical documentation so that we can self-serve without constantly having to go back to them and ask."
"The product price could be more affordable."
"We are trying to put it into a complete CI/CD pipeline, but there are still some challenges when you try to run it through different protocols. The challenges are around how you can containerize applications. There are some limitations to some protocols, such as desktop. And when it comes to database testing, there are some things that we can't do through CI/CD."
"I'd like to see more ability to dive more deeply into the configuration."
"It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need."
"We are expecting more flexible to use Jenkins in continuous integration going forward."
"The reporting has room for improvement."
"The solution is expensive."
"For such an experienced team as mine, who have been with the product for over ten years, sometimes working with technical support is not that easy."
"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."
"The cost of the solution is high and can be improved."
"They had wanted to change the GUI to improve the look and feel. However, since that time, we see a lot of hanging issues."
"I think better or more integration with some of the monitoring tools that we're considering."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2, while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud writes "Supports multiple protocols and helps to ensure that our applications are stable at any given point". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter, Apache JMeter and Oracle Application Testing Suite, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad, Apache JMeter and OpenText ALM / Quality Center. See our OpenText LoadRunner Cloud vs. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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.
