We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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's fast, easy to use, has a user-friendly UI, and you can split users."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"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 product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"The TruClient feature is the most valuable for us. An application with testing can only be scripted using TruClient, so it's part web-based, but it also has its own protocol combined with HTTP and HTML. So many other tools do not recognize this specific proprietary protocol. Using TruClient, we can still create scripts that cover everything that we need to cover."
"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 TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI."
"The most valuable feature is that you can create an infrastructure on-demand and do performance testing with it."
"I like LoadRunner's ability to use multiple protocols. That's one of the greatest features along with the ability to test service calls between the app and server."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"Graph monitoring is a valuable feature."
"My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs."
"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"It has features for recording. The best feature with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is that there is very little bottleneck or overhead issues. With LoadRunner, you can spawn 2000 contributions for one machine."
"It is a good and stable tool."
"The most important feature for us is that it supports a lot of protocols because we support all of them, including HTTP, FTP, mainframe, and others."
"The support team provides delayed responses."
"I don't know of any features that should be added. The solution isn't lacking anything at this point."
"I would like for there to be better integration with other tools so that when you do load testing you can also do a security check."
"The product must provide agents to monitor servers."
"There is a steep learning curve for the product, too."
"I'd like to see more ability to dive more deeply into the configuration."
"Its scripting features need improvement."
"It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need."
"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 debugging capability should be improved."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional can improve the implementation of digital areas, such as digital testing, UI and native application, and native mobile applications."
"Micro Focus has two separate products for web and mobile applications, which means you have to invest in both."
"If the support of the protocols was the same throughout the other protocols and it was there evenly, then I would rate the product higher."
"The price of this solution should be cheaper."
"I recently just got to see LoadRunner Developer, but it is still not fully developed to use."
"Lacks specific level monitoring."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Load Testing Tools with 39 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 76 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2, while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud writes "Enterprise modeling, server maintenance, and competitive pricing". 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". OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, Tricentis NeoLoad, BlazeMeter, Apache JMeter and OpenText UFT One, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, Apache JMeter, IBM Rational Performance Tester and BlazeMeter. See our OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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.