We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly."
"We implemented through the vendor, who used highly-skilled professionals."
"The product is good, and the concept is good as well."
"Support is nice, quick, and responsive."
"We can book load generators."
"With Performance Center, the version upgrade is easy. You just have to roll out the new patch or the new version."
"The host performance testing of any application using a host/controller is the most valuable feature."
"This is a product that has a lot of capabilities and is the most mature tool of its kind in the market."
"It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"It is very easy to maintain tests with this tool. It covers all necessary items in the test plan. The most painful item in testing is maintenance. When changes occur, the tests should be maintained."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"The product has many features."
"The most valuable features of the SmartBear TestComplete are self-healing, they reduce the maintenance required. The different languages SmartBear TestComplete supports are good because some of our libraries are written in Python, JavaScript, and C#. It's very easy to put them all under one project and use them. The are other features that SmartBear TestComplete has but the competition widely has them as well."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's reporting should be quicker, easier, and more flexible."
"Offering a direct integration feature would ensure a completely smooth experience."
"Sometimes, the code is not generated when we record the scripts in the backend."
"Integration can be tricky during the setup process."
"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."
"I have seen some users report some issues, but I have personally not had any issues."
"The support team needs to be more coordinated."
"I know there are integrations with continuous testing. It's got tie-ins to some of the newer tools to allow continuous testing. I'd love to see us not have to customize it, but for it to be out of the box."
"In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"Error handling features in the tool are a little limited."
"We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 70 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Apache JMeter, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish.
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.