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 supports a lot of technologies. The existing performance testing that this tool is capable of is good. The protocols that are available are widely varied when compared to other performance testing tools."
"I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself."
"For me, the test coverage and the performance and load testing aspects are valuable."
"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."
"The product is good, and the concept is good as well."
"I think the number one feature everybody likes is the capability to easily generate virtual users as well as the reporting."
"Probably its prime advantage, it provides a centralized location for testing."
"The most valuable part of the product is the way you can scale the basic testing easily."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment."
"In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"This company offers end-to-end capabilities for test suite creation and execution. One feature that I particularly appreciate is the tagging system. Tags are highly valuable, as they allow you to assign tags to your test cases. When there's an impact in a specific area, you can search for and run all test cases associated with that tag. I find this functionality very useful."
"The solution is mainly stable."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"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."
"The worst thing about it is it did not have zero footprint on your PC."
"The process of upgrading LoadRunner can be difficult and time-consuming."
"I believe the data that demonstrates the automated correlations should be corrected."
"I think better support for cloud-based load generators would help. For example, integrate with Amazon AWS so you can quickly spin up a load generator in the cloud, use it, spin it down."
"Canned reports are always a challenge and a question with customers because customers want to see sexy reports."
"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 installation has not been straightforward, and we have had so many problems. We have had to re-install, try to install on a different machine, etc. We have not been able to launch the LRE server itself yet."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical."
"TestComplete gives support to do requests to a SOAP web service but has no support to do HTTP requests on Restful services."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
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 Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, 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.