We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Perfecto based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."LoadRunner is a very systematic tool for anyone to use. Even someone who is actually a first time user of LoadRunner can actually get a lot of benefit out of the tool."
"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."
"The solution supports a lot of protocols."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"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 like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good."
"My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs."
"Paramterization and correlation are important features."
"Perfecto has affected our software quality in a good way. It has allowed us to execute on-demand and on-choice. We also track the number of issues that we find in the product. Every single day, we tag the issues that we found. For example, if something was found by automation, that means it was found by a Perfecto execution. Over time, we realized the real value in tracking those numbers. We can see now that we have clearly been finding issues earlier. It has allowed us to catch our defects earlier, thus improving the quality of our applications."
"The reporting feature is really tough to find in some of the other products that are competitors. Having your CITB type dashboard, where we can see the test results and see recordings of each test that passed or failed, is probably one of the distinguishing aspects of Perfecto."
"The automation piece is the most valuable feature. Every time we had a new version of either OS or an application, we found that being able to automate the testing across different devices is very valuable."
"It creates a faster production cycle and is quick to market. Things get deployed earlier because the testing happens on time. We can do a lot of panelization, so a lot of test phases can happen in a panel. People don't have to wait for a device to come to them. They can access multiple devices at the same time and do testing at the same time."
"Mobile testing is the most valuable feature as it has reduced dependency on physical devices. We are located offshore and we don't have the physical devices, and shipping physical devices after every new release would be a difficult task. But with Perfecto, it is easy."
"It saves on the cost and effort of having to maintain our own virtual testing environment. Even our onshore team is not in the city that we work in, so that helps a lot. Even if we didn't invest a lot in getting multiple devices, having to share those devices would become a hassle."
"The number one feature, which if we didn't have out-of-the-box would be missed, is the fact that we have video execution. That gives us the ability to view errors or defects in the progression, from beginning to the end of the video."
"We are able to offer a quality product that has been tested fully, which improves our customer satisfaction. That is a good thing. It has also reduced our IT infrastructure cost. We don't have to spend a lot on setting up infrastructure, which becomes redundant or obsolete very soon. It helps in offsetting that cost."
"In terms of improvement, it lacks mobile testing features present in some competitors, like GitMatters, which I find valuable."
"I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support."
"There's a reporting part of the cloud that could be improved a little bit."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional can improve the implementation of digital areas, such as digital testing, UI and native application, and native mobile applications."
"Compared to some other vendors, there is a lack of community support."
"The flexibility could be improved."
"There is room for improvement of the pilot processing, the dump analysis, and forwarding results based on the dump analysis. We have a generator, root controller, different agents, and an analyzer, so all of these are very important when it comes to LoadRunner."
"The only scenario we see a complexity is when we have single-page applications where JavaScript is talking to the server and coming back. That's the only scenario where we find some difficulties."
"It does well for mobile testing, but when it comes to the web aspect, it is lagging a little bit in terms of execution."
"Its performance should be improved. Anything to speed up the user interface would be a great help. We've had a lot of pain with their migration from a product UI that was based on Adobe Flash to the new product that is based on HTML5. Migrations like that seemed to be very painful and not a real smooth process. We're still sort of recovering from that migration from old technology to new, and we haven't got all the functionality ported over that we used to have on the old UI."
"The flakiness, or the accuracy, of the test execution can be improved. Also, the responsiveness of their cloud lab could be improved as well."
"It would be ideal if there was a complete integration with other test management tools and other applications like HPLM, Micro Focus, or Microsoft Azure."
"We don't use Perforce's BlazeMeter with Perfecto. From my perspective, it's not really relevant."
"There could be some improvements done on the interface. At times, there has been a bit of a struggle when finding things on the interface. A UI revamp would be a better option in future. That UI hasn't changed much in a long time, so I think they could just make it a bit better so that people could find stuff easily and intuitively."
"I would like to see the inclusion of machine learning features. If we can have that, it will be a better tool."
"Previously, we used the cradle. Every time the mobile was blocking it, we would have to ask Perfecto to provide another one. That took a lot of time away from us."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews while Perfecto is ranked 8th in Performance Testing Tools with 23 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while Perfecto is rated 8.4. 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 Perfecto writes "Its reporting allows us to have a clear view regarding what tests have been executed". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and IBM Rational Performance Tester, whereas Perfecto is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Appium, AWS Device Farm and Katalon Studio. See our OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs. Perfecto report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors.
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.