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."The solution supports a number of protocols."
"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."
"Creating the script is very easy and user friendly."
"The most beneficial features of the solution are flexibility and versatility in their performance."
"Support is nice, quick, and responsive."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's best feature is the detailed reporting structure."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to use and has flexibility that allows it to be used on a variety of applications."
"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."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"We'd like the product to include protocol identifiers whenever a tester wants to test a new application."
"They had wanted to change the GUI to improve the look and feel. However, since that time, we see a lot of hanging issues."
"The cost of the solution is high and can be improved."
"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."
"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."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's reporting should be quicker, easier, and more flexible."
"The solution is a very expensive tool when compared with other tools."
"The process of upgrading LoadRunner can be difficult and time-consuming."
"One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"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."
"It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing)."
"To bring it up to a 10, I would be looking for the addition of some key functional API testing."
"Product is not stable enough and it crashes often."
"In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical."
"Error handling features in the tool are a little limited."
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.