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."Provides the performance of load test applications and reliably on good reporting."
"I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself."
"We have Performance Center as a platform to share with others that don't do performance testing full-time, so that they in an agile fashion, on demand can go ahead and get real issue-finding testing done."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's most valuable features are load simulation and creating correlation for parameters."
"What I like most in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the comparison between two different exhibitions which gives value to my company. I also like that the solution is user-friendly, especially in terms of making specific changes. For example, in the past, you can't see the changes when you upload scripts into the Performance Center, but now, it has that visibility, so whenever you want, you can change the script in the Performance Center. I also like that Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the only tool you can utilize for all your needs, even for different protocols and scripting. The solution also has the latest features, for example, networkability, where it can, within the UI, follow the waterfall model. You can use the insights in the Performance Center of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise to address or test URLs that usually take up much time."
"It is pretty easy to do test execution and results analysis. When it comes to scenario settings, LoadRunner Enterprise has an extra edge over other testing tools in the industry. The scenario setup is easy, and in terms of execution, we have a clear idea of what is happening"
"It is mostly user-friendly and usable."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"The ease-of-use and quality of the overall product are above average."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"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."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"Selenium integration."
"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"Integration can be tricky during the setup process."
"The process of upgrading LoadRunner can be difficult and time-consuming."
"I have seen some users report some issues, but I have personally not had any issues."
"The solution is expensive."
"Dashboard creation should be implemented, so we can get the results in a desired format."
"They need to focus on minimizing the cost."
"The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved."
"The reporting has room for improvement."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"Product is not stable enough and it crashes often."
"I didn't use it very heavily. One issue that I found was that there wasn't a quick way or a button to move Visual Basic scripts to TestComplete. We have a lot of such scripts in our organization, and it would be very useful to have some option to easily move these scripts. It is currently possible to convert these scripts to TestComplete, but it is not easy. I have to write some code, but everything is not available immediately."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
"Right now, when you buy the solution, you need to pay for one solution. You receive one set up and you install it and it's just in that one machine. It would be ideal if they could offer one subscription where you can connect to different machines with a group subscription."
"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."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
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.
