We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Parasoft SOAtest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."There are various languages that they allow those programs to be written in, whether you want to use Java or something else."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to create performance test cases quickly and then execute them. It provides a lot of powerful features to do that very efficiently and effectively."
"I appreciate its ability to handle various internal calls and its user-friendly interface."
"It has features for recording. The best feature with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is that there is very little bottleneck or overhead issues. With LoadRunner, you can spawn 2000 contributions for one machine."
"It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it."
"Very useful for finding out how the system responds to load, stress, and normal situations, as well as benchmarking with other industry competitors. It also improved our response time, memory delegation, and CPU delegation. In addition, we used LoadRunner to optimize our database and website."
"Its variety of testing tools for different applications is of great benefit, as well as its integration capabilities with other testing and monitoring solutions."
"The solution supports a lot of protocols."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"The solution is scalable."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"We can automate our scenarios in a data driven format, which shows there is no rework on scripts. We only need to update the test data and run for a number of scenarios."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"The solution lacks some form of integration."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
"I recently just got to see LoadRunner Developer, but it is still not fully developed to use."
"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"We still have some issues with integration with things like SiteScope which, obviously, being another HPE product should be very straightforward, but there are always issues around that."
"You should be able to use LoadRunner as a single platform. You should be able to have browser based access. You should be able to run enterprise tests."
"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"The monitoring technology in LoadRunner could be improved. It depends on another tool called SiteScope, but they only took a part of the features of SiteScope. They need to improve on that."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"Enabling/disabling an optional element of an XML request is only possible if a data source (e.g., Excel sheet) is connected to the test. Otherwise, the option is not available at all in the drop-down menu."
"During the process of working with SOAtest and building test cases, the .TST files will grow. A negative side effect is that saving your changes takes more time."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 76 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 23rd in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and IBM Rational Performance Tester, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork and Polyspace Code Prover.
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.