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."This product is better oriented to large, enterprise-oriented organizations."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the Vuser protocols."
"With Performance Center, the version upgrade is easy. You just have to roll out the new patch or the new version."
"We can measure metrics like hits per second and detect deviations or issues through graphs. We can filter out response times based on timings and identify spikes in the database or AWS reports."
"We can book load generators."
"The fact that you can have tens of thousands of virtual users and just expand an army of load generators to hammer on whatever application you're testing."
"The initial setup was straightforward. I was able to download everything myself without any IT support."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"The solution is mainly stable."
"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 most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"Selenium integration."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"We are expecting more flexible to use Jenkins in continuous integration going forward."
"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."
"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."
"Integration can be tricky during the setup process."
"The worst thing about it is it did not have zero footprint on your PC."
"It's not that popular on the cloud."
"Sometimes, the code is not generated when we record the scripts in the backend."
"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."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"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)."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
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.