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."What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"The user interface is fine."
"With Performance Center, the version upgrade is easy. You just have to roll out the new patch or the new version."
"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"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."
"It's a very powerful tool."
"It offers easy integration with third-party tools like Dynatrace, Splunk, etc."
"For me, the test coverage and the performance and load testing aspects are valuable."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"Selenium integration."
"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."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"The support team needs to be more coordinated."
"It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems."
"When we have a new application, recording the application is a pretty tough task. We have tried multiple things. We do scripting or try to record with different settings and on different machines. We try to record multiple times, but we do not know why it is recording and why it is not recording. We do the same thing on different machines. It sometimes records, and at other times, it does not. That is one of the major concerns."
"It's not that popular on the cloud."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise needs to add more features for Citrix performance-based applications testing. This was one of the challenges we observed. Additionally, we experienced some APIs challenges."
"The solution is a very expensive tool when compared with other tools."
"Currently, when we try open LRE we encounter cookie banner issues. However, I'm not sure if it is within the enterprise solution or with the vendors."
"After they get over the acquisition, the first improvement is going to be tailoring it for their existing stack of other products. How would LoadRunner work for Documentum? How would it work for Business Network? How would it work for other apps? They can have a pre-package or a guide because they are all in the same family as opposed to being outside."
"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."
"The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"The integration tools could be better."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS."
"Product is not stable enough and it crashes often."
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.