We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise and ReadyAPI Performance based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Load Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The tool is very easy to set up and get running."
"IP Spoofing can be done using Performance Center."
"What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"It offers easy integration with third-party tools like Dynatrace, Splunk, etc."
"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."
"It is mostly user-friendly and usable."
"The product is very user-friendly."
"The solution supports a number of protocols."
"It's like a centralized interface that allows us to increase the quality of our APIs."
"We find the product to be scalable."
"ReadyAPI automation can help us validate the functionality of most web services, allowing us to find out the exact number of defects before deployment to the user interface."
"We can scale."
"he initial deployment process is easy."
"The performance and reporting of this solution have been its most valuable features."
"It stores good reports, as in, improved reports if compared with the SoapUI. It also has in-built security. You just need to switch and check the security testing. My team has never used it, but I know ReadyAPI provides those facilities as well."
"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."
"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."
"A room for improvement in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is that it should take multiple exhibitions for a particular scenario and have automatic trending for that. This will be a very useful feature that lets users look into how many exhibitions happened for the scenario and their performance, and you should be able to see the data within the Performance Center dashboard. For example, there's one scenario I'm focusing on multiple times in a month, and if I check five times, there's no way for me to see the trend and find out how it went with those five exhibitions. It would be great if the Performance Center has a view of all five exhibitions, particularly transaction by transaction, and how they happened. If Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise shows you the time trends, information about one exhibition to another, and how each performed, it'll be an immense feature, and that should be visible to every user. Reporting should be simpler in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. If I did a scenario with one exhibition now, and I did that scenario again, then I should be able to schedule that scenario for the exhibition, and if that scenario is executed multiple times, there should be the option to turn it into a single view that shows you all the transactions, how the performance was, what the trend graph is for a particular time, etc."
"The worst thing about it is it did not have zero footprint on your PC."
"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."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise needs to improve reporting."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise doesn't support some mainframe protocols. We had to build scripts to access the interface."
"This solution could be improved by offering artificial AI testing in addition to API testing. For example, we would like to have machine learning testing because when test applications, manual work could be completed automatically using this functionality."
"This is an area for improvement with the tool. We unnecessarily use JMeter for some website testing, which we would like to avoid by introducing this tool for API and load testing because it provides load testing features."
"I'd not sure if they have the same level of documentation for performance and security testing."
"I want the solution to be able to monitor Apache Kafka activity as well."
"The solution’s interface could be improved."
"We need some time to understand and configure the solution."
"It is very slow sometimes."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Load Testing Tools with 81 reviews while ReadyAPI Performance is ranked 8th in Load Testing Tools with 7 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while ReadyAPI Performance is rated 8.2. 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 ReadyAPI Performance writes "Straightforward to install with the ability to add multiple assertions but the price is too high". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Apache JMeter, whereas ReadyAPI Performance is most compared with SmartBear LoadNinja and Apache JMeter. See our OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise vs. ReadyAPI Performance report.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors and best Performance Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.