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 user interface is fine."
"It allows you to work out how well you are doing project-wise because you see the number of scripts done, the number of tests run, and whether you have mapped all your requirements to it."
"What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"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."
"This product is better oriented to large, enterprise-oriented organizations."
"The solution is a very user-friendly tool, especially when you compare it to a competitor like BlazeMeter."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly."
"It's a very powerful tool."
"It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows."
"TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"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 is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"Dashboard creation should be implemented, so we can get the results in a desired format."
"Third-party product integrations could be a little more slickly handled."
"The price of this solution could be less expensive. However, this category of solutions is expensive."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"I know there are integrations with continuous testing. It's got tie-ins to some of the newer tools to allow continuous testing. I'd love to see us not have to customize it, but for it to be out of the box."
"Offering a direct integration feature would ensure a completely smooth experience."
"In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical."
"One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"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."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"TestComplete gives support to do requests to a SOAP web service but has no support to do HTTP requests on Restful services."
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.