We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and OpenText LoadRunner Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Load Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It gives accurate results and recommendations that we can implement to enhance the performance of websites."
"Very user-friendly and easy to use."
"This solution is very user-friendly, and allows for a lot of data capture when testing."
"JMeter is a free tool with a large user population, which comes in handy because we have a vast knowledge base to tap into when needed. It's also easier to hire consultants who know JMeter."
"It's open source, so I like that about the product. And there's a lot of community support for it."
"The thread groups, samplers, and listeners, which are all determined by the script's requirements, are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The solution's initial setup is easy."
"Apache JMeter is well-known and widely used among developers, particularly on popular developer forums. While it may not have the most user-friendly interface, it offers strong support through official manuals and various articles from companies providing load testing services. The tool is free, has a substantial community, and serves as a fundamental choice for testers, especially those new to performance testing. While other tools like K6 may be more developer-oriented, JMeter's affordability and accessibility make it suitable for those without extensive performance testing experience."
"It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system."
"LoadRunner is a very sophisticated tool, and I can use many languages. For example, I can use Java. I can use C++. I can test the Internet of Things, FTP, mail, and Active Directory. It is very useful."
"The solution helps my clients save time. It is easier to capture reports and improves product quality. The product helps to identify customer defects during performance tests and reduces workloads. The product has improved my client's user interaction. It has reduced peak load times."
"Its variety of testing tools for different applications is of great benefit, as well as its integration capabilities with other testing and monitoring solutions."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation."
"The ability to do multithreading. That's available in any performance testing tool, but the number of protocols that this particular tool supports has been very good."
"The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"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 stability could be a bit better."
"The reporting is not very good."
"It should start supporting the presentation layer. It currently provides performance testing specifically at the application and API level. It can be extended to the presentation layer, which includes mainly Angular and React frameworks. It should also be easy to use and easy to train people."
"Apache should have a graphic interface."
"Considering the kinds of tests we are performing here, where we launch several tests at the same time as a batch request, JMeter is not the best tool for the job. Those kinds of things could be done easily with other tools, like T6."
"The UI of the solution needs to be better. The UI takes up a lot of our bandwidth."
"Currently, the integration pipeline is implemented by using Jenkins or a similar tool platform. These are continuous integration tools. As far as I know, integration is done by using custom scripts. It would be good if the integration with a continuous integration pipeline, like Jenkins or Hudson, can be done out of the box without using a script."
"The plug-ins make the reports heavy and they have to be run in non-GUI mode."
"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"
"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."
"I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator."
"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"The price of this solution should be cheaper."
"LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved."
"I would like the solution to include monitoring capacity."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high-quality technical support, I rate the support a one."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Load Testing Tools with 82 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 3rd in Load Testing Tools with 77 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". 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". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and ReadyAPI, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, IBM Rational Performance Tester and Tricentis Tosca. See our Apache JMeter vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional report.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors and best Performance Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.