We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise and ReadyAPI 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."It offers easy integration with third-party tools like Dynatrace, Splunk, etc."
"It is also good for reporting purposes, which would be most familiar for QC and UFT users."
"The most valuable feature is the Vuser protocols."
"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."
"The solution offers helpful guidelines and has good documentation."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise supports a lot of technologies. The existing performance testing that this tool is capable of is good. The protocols that are available are widely varied when compared to other performance testing tools."
"I think the number one feature everybody likes is the capability to easily generate virtual users as well as the reporting."
"The great thing about ReadyAPI is that it has a wide variety of functions. You can test any API that you come across. You are not limited to one type of API. It supports many APIs."
"The interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them."
"A single platform for functional testing, load testing security, and service actualization."
"The most valuable feature has been the assertion as a test step as this has allowed us to increase the scope of testing and validation."
"The Excel sheet feature is good."
"I haven't seen any other tool that offers both types of tests. This is very helpful for us, and it's one of the main reasons why we chose this service."
"It has the ability to combine it with different CI/CD tools."
"It's easy to automate for more data-driven testing."
"We are expecting more flexible to use Jenkins in continuous integration going forward."
"Dashboard creation should be implemented, so we can get the results in a desired format."
"The reporting has room for improvement."
"I'd rate the scalability a six out of ten. The main reason is that it's a very expensive application. Other companies might not be able to afford it. For example, if we need to test an application with 10,000 concurrent users, the license can cost a lot of money. That's where OpenText tools shoot themselves in the foot compared to other tools. Because of the price, many companies, like one I used to work for, decided not to renew their licenses and switched to open-source testing tools."
"OpenText needs to improve in terms of support. With the same support plan but when the product was owned by HP, support was more responsive and better coordinated."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, I need to spend a lot of time training people, while on other low-code or no-code platforms, I need not invest that much time."
"Canned reports are always a challenge and a question with customers because customers want to see sexy reports."
"Third-party product integrations could be a little more slickly handled."
"They have performance testing also. However, it's not that great."
"It is challenging doing upgrades and patches because sometimes the environmental variables or suits in the projects get erased."
"There are lots of options within the solution, however they are not upfront or user-friendly."
"The Property Transfer capability could be more user friendly because it is a bit difficult to understand."
"Better compatibility or more support for the older versions would be helpful."
"The reporting in ReadyAPI could be better. It can become sloppy, sometimes it works and other times it does not."
"ReadyAPI can improve because it is limited to only SOAP and REST services. They should update the solution to include more protocols so that other people are not limited to SOAP and REST services. Other than would be able to utilize it."
"I would like to see a better dashboard for monitoring in the next release of this solution."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Performance Testing Tools with 34 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.8. 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 writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Apache JMeter, whereas ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, ReadyAPI Test and SmartBear TestComplete. See our OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise vs. ReadyAPI 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.
