We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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."This solution is very user-friendly, and allows for a lot of data capture when testing."
"The scripting ability is most valuable. It is easy to use. There is a UI, and you can go in there and figure those things out. After you've got a good set of tests, you basically have a scripted document that you can grab and execute in a pipeline. It is pretty quick to set up, and you can scale it and version control it."
"The features that I appreciate are quite basic. It is easy to ramp up the threads and start calling the application. A lot of connectors can already be found within Apache JMeter, but we are not using the entire set because the integration between the customers and platform is based on HTTP. We are just going to produce lots of HTTP sequences."
"When there's a high number of TPS I can achieve more transactions per seconds given the hyper-limitations."
"It's open source, so I like that about the product. And there's a lot of community support for it."
"Due to process automation, I don't have to prepare reports, making it the perfect solution."
"The new version of the solution is stable."
"JMeter is easy to use for a user who doesn't have too much knowledge of programming or certain languages."
"It is a good and stable tool."
"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."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"The stability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is very high. It is the leading tool for stability."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period."
"LoadRunner is a very sophisticated tool, and I can use many languages. For example, I can use Java. I can use C++. I can test the Internet of Things, FTP, mail, and Active Directory. It is very useful."
"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."
"Apache should have a graphic interface."
"The reporting section of the solution can be better."
"JMeter is lagging when it comes to GUI performance testing because we need to install some third-party plugins for recording the GUI script, and the performance isn't very reliable."
"At present, if the number of virtual users increases beyond 10,000 when testing, then it results in a Java heap which causes the solution to crash."
"They should improve the solution on its UI front."
"We're like the solution to be more user-friendly."
"The reporting is not very good."
"It has some proxy-based dependencies which require specific proxies to be set up or disabled, which causes problems."
"I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support."
"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"Lacks specific level monitoring."
"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 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 reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
"You should be able to use LoadRunner as a single platform. You should be able to have browser based access. You should be able to run enterprise tests."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Load Testing Tools with 82 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 76 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". 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". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and ReadyAPI, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, IBM Rational Performance Tester and BlazeMeter. See our Apache JMeter vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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.