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."The solution is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to configure browser settings for different operating systems and on different versions without the need to install every single version on each machine and to manage them."
"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."
"The solution can scale."
"The most valuable feature is having load generators in countries where we don’t have access to them."
"It's a fast product, so you don't have much trouble in terms of maintenance overhead. You don't want to just look into configuring load generators, look for upgrades, and end up having that take up a lot of your time. With this solution, you just log in and you start using it. This means that there is a huge benefit in terms of the overhead of maintaining the infrastructure and the maintenance effort."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"The solution supports a lot of protocols."
"It has good protocol coverage."
"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."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"The front loader and the reporting features are the most valuable aspects of OpenText LoadRunner Professional."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional are scripting and executing the tests."
"It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it."
"The product price could be more affordable."
"It should have a feature to report with a 99.9 percentile success rate."
"Sometimes, you are utilizing one of the low generators, then all of a sudden if you discontinue from one project, it actually deletes the entire low generator."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"CI/CD integration could be a little bit better. When there's a test and if you see that there are high response times in the test itself, it would be great to be able to send an alert. It would give a heads-up to the architect community or ops community."
"The tool needs to work on capture script feature."
"The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays."
"LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved."
"If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help."
"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"The solution lacks some form of integration."
"Improvement wise, the pipeline should be enabled. It should be embedded as part of the tool itself rather than going with third-party tools. Monitoring should be more effective as well."
"I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator."
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.