What is our primary use case?
Our primary use case for LoadRunner is a lot of business transactions, physical scenarios, and incoming applications. We use LoadRunner for building and it is very easy to use because of its support for all of the protocols.
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.
How has it helped my organization?
LoadRunner is an expensive tool, so mostly it is large-sized companies that would prefer LoadRunner over other legacy applications. Being with LoadRunner for so long has given a lot of opportunities for us to experiment with large workloads and even the various different types of extensions. That has actually really benefited the organization.
What is most valuable?
One of the most valuable features of LoadRunner is the correlation feature which is automated now. All year when I started this with a lot of manual processes, it would actually capture dynamic values, but now these new versions have made it very easy for any newcomer to form whatever you want.
Get in other agitation settings which are very detailed and any tester can go through everything they intend to do, customize their execution patterns. The results are very detailed, presenting a very comprehensive summary that anyone can read and understand.
What needs improvement?
If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help. My main recommendations for improvement for LoadRunner are:
- It would be good if LoadRunner can categorize the different transactions based on the time taken to do the test, against the transactions first.
- The reports should be a little more comprehensive, more detailed.
- There should be a way to use the default monitoring tool integrated with LoadRunner.
For example, if I have to look for monitoring I have to always integrate an extending tool to LoadRunner and then monitor my task. If LoadRunner is not driving and they can afford to have their own monitoring enabled, that would help.
The LoadRunner report also needs more information other than the straightforward notes, like response time.
For how long have I used the solution?
More than five years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
To be frank, the earlier version (graded I-5 and graded I-6) was very bad for me. I had a really bad experience on that version.
One of the problems we had was that one of the scripts that we used to create worked and then there were some bugs that were coming out runtime support.
The recent version runs well, and actually, LoadRunner has removed those bugs. It's been a good experience.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
In terms of driving, LoadRunner is at a level that is a little riddled but otherwise, it's been a good thing. LoadRunner has the kind of features that are much more advanced. The comparison is IIS & NeoLoad. It is very scalable.
How are customer service and technical support?
Very rarely have I actually wondered how to use tech support because most of the bugs, most of the issues have been resolved by ourselves, through online browsing and materials. I've not really chatted with the LoadRunner tech support.
How was the initial setup?
The setup of LoadRunner is very straightforward. It comes with one retro file which installs all the applications which handle the individual applications also. It's a very easy setup, just that the sizing of the tools is much less. Other than that, the setup is pretty easy.
What about the implementation team?
The three factors we look for in a vendor are:
- The pricing
- The features
- The customer support
Definitely, the features are most important to complement the pricing.
What was our ROI?
Since it's 11 years that the company has been using LoadRunner, there was no other tool on the market that would actually come to the standards of LoadRunner and that is why we had chosen such a tool.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Look at the options on other software which are not as pricey as LoadRunner. It's true that LoadRunner has all the features and a lot of ways to help, but then not all companies require such extensive tools. That is where I would probably suggest asking the pricing and the features integrated.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
At that time it was Silk Performer vs. LoadRunner, and Silk Performer was not optimal enough in terms of its features. We were having a lot of issues trying to create our scripts using Silk Performer and latched upon LoadRunner. We found out that LoadRunner has got a lot more features than Silk Performer and was able to cover the tasks.
What other advice do I have?
I would give LoadRunner around 8 out of 10 in the review, considering the fact, that I know how good the tool is. There are a few areas for improvement, the results, and the monitoring tools. Other than that, I think I'm pretty satisfied with LoadRunner.