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."
"You can test a huge variety of applications, not just web-based systems, but SAP, Oracle, web services, pretty much anything out in the market place, but it's mobile-based testing."
"The solution is a very user-friendly tool, especially when you compare it to a competitor like BlazeMeter."
"For me, LoadRunner stands out, especially with its reporting capabilities, the graphs that can be generated, and the unique feature of measuring our application's response alongside our infrastructure metrics, such as CPU, memory, or disk usage, all presented in graph form. This is something other applications struggle to match."
"It is also good for reporting purposes, which would be most familiar for QC and UFT users."
"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."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is recording and replaying, and the fact that there are multiple options available to do this."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"It is very easy to maintain tests with this tool. It covers all necessary items in the test plan. The most painful item in testing is maintenance. When changes occur, the tests should be maintained."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, I need to spend a lot of time training people, while on other low-code or no-code platforms, I need not invest that much time."
"We'd like the product to include protocol identifiers whenever a tester wants to test a new application."
"The debugging feature needs to include graphs."
"It would be good if we could look forward at the future technology needs we have. I would like to see Micro Focus provide more customer awareness around how LoadRunner can fulfill requirements with Big Data use cases, for example, where you do performance testing at the scale of data lakes... when it comes to technologies our company has yet to adopt, I would like to see an indication from Micro Focus of how one does performance testing and what kinds of challenges can we foresee. Those kinds of studies would really help us."
"The cost of the solution is high and can be improved."
"It is tough to maintain from the infrastructure side."
"Sometimes, the code is not generated when we record the scripts in the backend."
"Micro Focus's technical support could be more responsive."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"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 initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete was complex."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"The integration tools could be better."
"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."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
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.