We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, 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."Both the professional and cloud versions of Micro Focus LoadRunner use the same scripting or programming to execute performance modeling operations. This feature allows users to use various programming languages such as Java, C, or C++, which can run within either of the two environments. This flexibility in the programming language is a strong point of the software."
"It's fast, easy to use, has a user-friendly UI, and you can split users."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"The record and playback feature is the most valuable feature. It's all driven by the script, so it's a script-based tool where the background tracing starts. Java's background process does a lot of tracing. The process starts in the background. It sees what peaks of volumes that the process can handle. It's easy to use because it's script based, record, and playback. I"
"The usability and ability to integrate with other solutions is quite good. When I use it in on Azure, then Red Hat is the most likely solution I use. When I use AWS, then I tend to use Lambda functions. In either case, it works well and you can use it either way."
"The product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"The beauty of LoadRunner Cloud is that we can use the load generator that is hosted by us on-premises, and we also have the option to use their hosted load generator. If it is a public-hosted application, we can also use their public-hosted load generator, but in our case, all our applications are hosted in our data center, so we are using the on-premise load generator. We have the option to deploy those load generators as we want."
"The solution can scale."
"Paramterization and correlation are important features."
"The stability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is very high. It is the leading tool for stability."
"It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system."
"A very comprehensive tool that is good for performance testing."
"It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation."
"The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period."
"The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"Simple capturing of dynamic variables and simple scripting."
"There aren't other solutions as competitive as Tricentis NeoLoad when it comes to the performance side."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"The test cases are quite easy to build and to maintain. This is the most valuable aspect of the solution for us. It's the reason why they changed from JMeter to NeoLoad."
"It is a good source for load, stress and 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."
"The most useful aspect of Tricentis NeoLoad was for the web."
"The most valuable feature is flexibility, as it connects to all of the endpoints that we need it to."
"One area of improvement in the software's support is the replaying of captured data within the development environment. It would be beneficial if the replay feature could accurately mimic what the actual application is doing for better analysis and testing."
"Improvements to the reporting would be good."
"I'd like to see more ability to dive more deeply into the configuration."
"We are trying to put it into a complete CI/CD pipeline, but there are still some challenges when you try to run it through different protocols. The challenges are around how you can containerize applications. There are some limitations to some protocols, such as desktop. And when it comes to database testing, there are some things that we can't do through CI/CD."
"We did have some challenges with the initial implementation."
"We encounter hurdles while running the professional version for on-premise setup."
"One area for improvement in LoadRunner Cloud, especially for agile models, is its limited support for functional testing alongside its robust non-functional testing capabilities."
"The product price could be more affordable."
"I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator."
"In terms of improvement, it lacks mobile testing features present in some competitors, like GitMatters, which I find valuable."
"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 monitoring technology in LoadRunner could be improved. It depends on another tool called SiteScope, but they only took a part of the features of SiteScope. They need to improve on that."
"The debugging capability should be improved."
"We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market."
"The pricing model, selling model, and business model need to be adjusted. For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost."
"If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help."
"Support wasn't able to solve a technical issue."
"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."
"Tricentis NeoLoad could improve the terminal emulation mainframe. It is not able to use the low code or no code option. You have to code it yourself."
"Connecting with the solution's technical support can be time-consuming. The turnaround time for a ticket raised is around 72 hours, which becomes an issue when working on a huge project in our company."
"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 solution can be improved by introducing a secure testing feature."
"The protocol support area could be improved."
"An area for improvement in Tricentis NeoLoad is its price, as it has a hefty price tag."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →