Compare Cavisson NetStorm vs. LoadRunner

Cavisson NetStorm is ranked 11th in Load Testing Tools with 1 review while LoadRunner is ranked 1st in Load Testing Tools with 10 reviews. Cavisson NetStorm is rated 9.0, while LoadRunner is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cavisson NetStorm writes "Pre-identifies production issues so that they can be fixed before release". On the other hand, the top reviewer of LoadRunner writes "Good synchronization capabilities but pilot processing needs improvement". Cavisson NetStorm is most compared with LoadRunner and Apache JMeter, whereas LoadRunner is most compared with LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and Neotys NeoLoad.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Cavisson NetStorm Logo
478 views|300 comparisons
LoadRunner Logo
16,138 views|11,629 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus, Apache, CA (A Broadcom Company) and others in Load Testing Tools. Updated: December 2019.
389,772 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
This tool helps to focus on real-time transactions that occur at a very high rate.

Read more »

The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports.I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful.I like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good.The load testing, reporting, and scripting features are all valuable features.The solution is quite stable.The initial setup and installation of the software were very easy and straightforward.The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period.Very useful for finding out how the system responds to load, stress, and normal situations, as well as benchmarking with other industry competitors. It also improved our response time, memory delegation, and CPU delegation. In addition, we used LoadRunner to optimize our database and website.

Read more »

Cons
In the next release, we are looking for a JS instrumentation feature that would be helpful in identifying client-side issues at an early stage, or during testing.

Read more »

The debugging capability should be improved.I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator.The solution uses a lot of memory and then it dies. It's difficult to work with the solution sometimes when you run a scenario it dies. They need to make the solution lighter somehow.The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive.I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients.Sometimes we are not be able to click on some of the buttons due to the screen mismatching and compatibility issues.The price of this solution should be cheaper.There is room for improvement of the pilot processing, the dump analysis, and forwarding results based on the dump analysis. We have a generator, root controller, different agents, and an analyzer, so all of these are very important when it comes to LoadRunner.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
NetStorm is priced well when compared to many well-known tools.

Read more »

The licensing fees are based on the number of users.I don't know the licensing cost, but I think that you would get a discount for normal usage. I think there are different yearly options for different types of usage. It is not only how many users, but also whether it is shareable or not and other criteria involved in each feature. There are additional fees for the users and hardware linked to the processing.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
389,772 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
11th
out of 25 in Load Testing Tools
Views
478
Comparisons
300
Reviews
1
Average Words per Review
348
Avg. Rating
9.0
1st
out of 25 in Load Testing Tools
Views
16,138
Comparisons
11,629
Reviews
8
Average Words per Review
448
Avg. Rating
8.0
Top Comparisons
Compared 61% of the time.
Compared 39% of the time.
Compared 24% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Also Known As
Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner
Learn
Cavisson
Video Not Available
Micro Focus
Overview

Cavisson NetStorm is a cost-effective, performance enhancing and easy-to-use appliance for enterprise applications. It is an extremely powerful load generator that provides an accurate estimation of Client Perceived Response Time (CPRT) enabling IT companies to guarantee the Service Level Agreements (SLA). Its advanced technology efficiently handles load variables, user realism, application realism and network realism. NetStorm is a proven solution providing root cause of the issues where legacy solutions failed, prompting Several Fortune 100 companies switching over to using NetStorm.

LoadRunner is the Micro Focus industry-standard software solution for application performance and load testing. LoadRunner stresses your entire system to isolate and identify potential client, network, and server bottlenecks, supporting performance testing of new technologies together with your existing, legacy applications.

Offer
Learn more about Cavisson NetStorm
Learn more about LoadRunner
Sample Customers
Oracle, Macy's, Redbox, art.com, Pronto Networks, A10 Networks, Renesas, San Jose Medical GroupJetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Top Industries
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Software R&D Company26%
Financial Services Firm21%
Comms Service Provider16%
Healthcare Company11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company40%
Comms Service Provider13%
Insurance Company8%
Government7%
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus, Apache, CA (A Broadcom Company) and others in Load Testing Tools. Updated: December 2019.
389,772 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.