We performed a comparison between Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise and Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional comes out on top in this comparison. Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is a mature and feature-rich solution with a proven ROI, whereas Enterprise users report being dissatisfied with the product’s ROI.
"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."
"The most valuable part of the product is the way you can scale the basic testing easily."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's best feature is the detailed reporting structure."
"The host performance testing of any application using a host/controller is the most valuable feature."
"Now that LoadRunner integrates with Dynatrace and other monitoring tools, it simplifies the process of integration into a company, taking merely five minutes to set up. This ease of integration allows for quick comparison of monitoring and performance results, a feature I highly appreciate."
"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"We can measure metrics like hits per second and detect deviations or issues through graphs. We can filter out response times based on timings and identify spikes in the database or AWS reports."
"This is a product that has a lot of capabilities and is the most mature tool of its kind in the market."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports."
"It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system."
"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."
"The load testing, reporting, and scripting features are all valuable features."
"I like LoadRunner's ability to use multiple protocols. That's one of the greatest features along with the ability to test service calls between the app and server."
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"It has good protocol coverage."
"The cost of the solution is high and can be improved."
"The reporting has room for improvement."
"Canned reports are always a challenge and a question with customers because customers want to see sexy reports."
"The product's scalability must be improved."
"We are expecting more flexible to use Jenkins in continuous integration going forward."
"They had wanted to change the GUI to improve the look and feel. However, since that time, we see a lot of hanging issues."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise doesn't support some mainframe protocols. We had to build scripts to access the interface."
"While the stability is generally good, there are a few strange issues that crop up unexpectedly which affect consistent use of the product."
"The tool needs to work on capture script feature."
"LoadRunner experiences high resource utilization. Even though we have machines with higher configurations, I've observed this behavior. Heavy traffic recording results in the tool hanging. So heavy traffic recording makes the tool slow."
"In terms of resource management, you need a lot of high capacity boxes if you need to generate a load of 1,000 or 2,000 users."
"The solution is very costly. The cost is very high, especially considering a lot of other resources are available now and they are less expensive. For a small organization, it is very difficult to sustain the costs involved in having the solution or the related fees"
"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."
"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."
"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"The solution uses a lot of memory and then it dies. It's difficult to work with the solution sometimes when you run a scenario it dies. They need to make the solution lighter somehow."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4. 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 OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad, Apache JMeter and OpenText ALM / Quality Center, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter, IBM Rational Performance Tester and Tricentis Tosca. See our OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load 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.