We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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."The solution helps by detecting bottlenecks."
"JMeter is easy to use for a user who doesn't have too much knowledge of programming or certain languages."
"We really appreciate that the solution comes with a live community, which continuously provided plugins and support protocols."
"Apache JMeter is stable."
"The reports and analysis tools are very good. They are the solution's most valuable features."
"The biggest thing I liked about it is that there is a huge user base out there, and being shareware and being Apache, if I have any question on how to get something done, I get 18 different answers. Out of those, there would be at least a few good approaches for what I was trying to do. So, the support system out there is most valuable."
"We use Apache JMeter for load testing, where we provide the throughput time."
"API testing, Database Testing, and MQ testing can be done with ease."
"The reports are very relevant to the customers’ expectations."
"One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is that we do not have to accommodate the load-testing infrastructure in our own data center."
"It is feature-rich. It supports most protocols, which is important because I am in charge of a team at the bank, and we do performance testing for all kinds of different applications. We have tons of them. We even do video streams."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"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 solution is easy to use."
"Apache JMeter may have difficulty recognizing dynamic objects in some critical cases, which can lead to challenges in terms of object identification."
"The tool needs to have a better Graphical User Interface. Many of the solution's features are difficult to understand due to the complex user interface and user experience. The product needs to add plugins. It should also work on the integration with external partners like IDE and API gateways."
"The UI of the solution needs to be better. The UI takes up a lot of our bandwidth."
"Apache JMeter's UI can be made more colorful."
"Report generation needs to be improved. It is quite difficult to get to."
"It's not easy to get the data from one place or to do customizations."
"Apache JMeter could use improvement in reporting. Currently, it isn't easy to generate reports in PDF format. While receiving reports in PDF format is possible, it requires a lot of customization. Additionally, when comparing the load test to others solutions it could improve."
"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."
"In terms of new features, they can natively integrate with Chaos engineering tools such as Chaos Monkey and AWS FIS. With LoadRunner, we can generate load, and if Chaos tools are also supported natively, it will help to get everything together."
"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."
"It should have a feature to report with a 99.9 percentile success rate."
"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."
"There is a steep learning curve for the product, too."
"It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need."
"An area for improvement is analytics on why response times are slow from certain countries."
"The product must provide agents to monitor servers."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2. 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 Cloud writes "Enterprise modeling, server maintenance, and competitive pricing". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and OpenText Silk Performer, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter and OpenText UFT One. See our Apache JMeter vs. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load 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.