We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools.
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is recording and replaying, and the fact that there are multiple options available to do this."
"The solution offers helpful guidelines and has good documentation."
"What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"Our main use case for the product was load and stress testing. It helped us put the system under stress by injecting in multiple users, such as 5,000 users."
"The most valuable feature is the Vuser protocols."
"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."
"Creating the script is very easy and user friendly."
"For me, LoadRunner stands out, especially with its reporting capabilities, the graphs that can be generated, and the unique feature of measuring our application's response alongside our infrastructure metrics, such as CPU, memory, or disk usage, all presented in graph form. This is something other applications struggle to match."
"The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"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."
"Enables us to test most of the products and projects that we have across all the different technologies, without having to look at other tools."
"The front loader and the reporting features are the most valuable aspects of OpenText LoadRunner Professional."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"Graph monitoring is a valuable feature."
"I like the scripting and parameterization features."
"From a functional perspective, the range of tools provided with Tricentis NeoLoad is perhaps the widest."
"Learning-wise, it's pretty straightforward and flexible because if the person has little knowledge of performance testing and the process, they can definitely easily grab the knowledge from NeoLoad."
"Tool for load testing and performance testing with good API support and good technical support. Tricentis NeoLoad is absolutely stable and scalable."
"We appreciate that this solution is very user-friendly, even if the user does not have a lot of protocol knowledge and experience."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"It offered us an easy to use, limited code option for end-to-end performance testing."
"I like the solution’s performance and integration. Also, the tool’s help center is very responsive and helpful. They have always helped me within a short duration of time."
"I think better or more integration with some of the monitoring tools that we're considering."
"Integration can be tricky during the setup process."
"Sometimes, the code is not generated when we record the scripts in the backend."
"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."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's reporting should be quicker, easier, and more flexible."
"New features have been added in latest version and need to be improved with the DevOps integration."
"The process of upgrading LoadRunner can be difficult and time-consuming."
"On the newer versions, I think the bleeding edge is still being worked on."
"The initial start-up of Micro Focus LoadRunner could be improved. When we add 20 or 30 scripts, the refresh is completed one by one. I would like to be able to select all the script at one time, so it can be completed in a single click, reducing the time required."
"The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays."
"Lacks specific level monitoring."
"There's a reporting part of the cloud that could be improved a little bit."
"Licensing costs could be reduced."
"The solution must be more user-friendly."
"If the support of the protocols was the same throughout the other protocols and it was there evenly, then I would rate the product higher."
"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"Sometimes it's complicated to maintain the test cases. It's much easier than in JMeter, however. I'm not sure if this depends so much on NeoLoad, or is more based on the environment that we are testing."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"It needs improvements in the UI. It's currently not as friendly as it should be."
"LoadRunner supports multiple protocols, whereas NeoLoad supports only three protocols. With NeoLoad, we can go for the SAP technology, web-based HTTP, and Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP). If I have to simulate .NET application-based traffic, I won't be able to do that. So, protocol support is a limitation for NeoLoad. It should support more protocols."
"The SAP area could be improved."
"NeoLoad does not support Citrix-based applications."
"The solution’s pricing is higher compared to other tools. Though the product’s reports are accurate, it needs to be more detailed like other tools."
"Most people focus on HTTPS or TCP, but it would be good to have support for a variety of different protocols."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
