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."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."
"We haven't had an outage since we started using the solution."
"The solution is a very user-friendly tool, especially when you compare it to a competitor like BlazeMeter."
"The solution supports a number of protocols."
"We implemented through the vendor, who used highly-skilled professionals."
"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."
"Support is nice, quick, and responsive."
"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 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."
"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."
"The ease-of-use and quality of the overall product are above average."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"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 product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"Dashboard creation should be implemented, so we can get the results in a desired format."
"I have seen some users report some issues, but I have personally not had any issues."
"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."
"New features have been added in latest version and need to be improved with the DevOps integration."
"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."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise needs to improve reporting."
"We'd like the product to include protocol identifiers whenever a tester wants to test a new application."
"The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"The initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete was complex."
"TestComplete gives support to do requests to a SOAP web service but has no support to do HTTP requests on Restful services."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"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."
"The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
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 7th in Test Automation Tools with 71 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.