We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Worksoft Certify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."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 reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports."
"The solution supports a lot of protocols."
"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."
"We don't find any features lacking. One of the most beneficial points we have from LoadRunner is we start sizing our infrastructure accordingly. So what we do is when we deploy a new workload, we do performance testing."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"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."
"A very comprehensive tool that is good for performance testing."
"Provides all the in-built functionalities and is a wonderful tool."
"We found that Worksoft is easier to use because our business experts can do the tests. We didn't have to have IT experts."
"It's script-free, which is really important for our end users because we are usually dealing with colleagues who are not developers and who do not always have the technical background of developing and scripting. It's very useful that there is a nice UI and the tool is script-free."
"The Capture 2.0 feature is very intuitive, useful, and user-friendly. You can do so much with it now, versus the older version."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automate quickly and to maintain and update scripts."
"The solution has cut our clients' test maintenance time for changes, like patches or system upgrades. They used to take a lot of time until the production validation completed. Now, it is just seconds until it is ready, so they can do executions within couple of minutes."
"We were able to use Worksoft to automate all of the actions that we would have to take after an SAP refresh. This way we do the refresh, then that night or right afterwards, we run the Worksoft script and it resets all of our testing users. This sets them up with the right access, the right approvals, and just sets up everything on the back-end so we can do our scripts the next night."
"For my processes, Worksoft makes them faster when creating scripts."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high-quality technical support, I rate the support a one."
"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"I recently just got to see LoadRunner Developer, but it is still not fully developed to use."
"The technical support of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. I had an issue with the licensing and their response time is slow. They can improve on this in the future."
"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"There should be more integration with more open-source platforms."
"We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly."
"If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help."
"One feature that could be added to Capture 2.0 is generating a PDF file from your capture, so you can see your screenshots and steps."
"Performance on the web UI part, especially with some of the more comprehensive Fiori features, like the complex tables that are being used, could be improved. In those cases we have noticed a lot of execution-time increase with regards to the Certify solution."
"Better automation capability would be helpful."
"We ran into some issues with the version that we were on during the initial setup. We ran into a bug on one version, then they upgraded us to a new version, and we got hit with another bug. So, they had to put us in a beta. That was a little frustrating. However, besides the bugs that we ran into, the install was pretty straightforward."
"I would like Worksoft Certify to do automation at any layer (the UI layer, API layer, or database layer) and challenge competitors in the RPA industry, like UiPath and Automation Anywhere."
"Capture 2.0 is not as useful when you get into more mature automation."
"Technical support's first response to us is usually late."
"We would like this to be able to be used outside of SAP applications, as it would be good for other types of products."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 64 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while Worksoft Certify 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 Worksoft Certify writes "Enables us to automate end-to-end testing of our integration between S/4HANA and Salesforce.com". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and IBM Rational Performance Tester, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and LEAPWORK.
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.