We performed a comparison between Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise and Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional comes out on top in this comparison. Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is a mature and feature-rich solution with a proven ROI, whereas Enterprise users report being dissatisfied with the product’s ROI.
"The product is good, and the concept is good as well."
"The tool is very easy to set up and get running."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is recording and replaying, and the fact that there are multiple options available to do this."
"We can book load generators."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise supports a lot of technologies. The existing performance testing that this tool is capable of is good. The protocols that are available are widely varied when compared to other performance testing tools."
"Provides the performance of load test applications and reliably on good reporting."
"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"Creating the script is very easy and user friendly."
"The front loader and the reporting features are the most valuable aspects of OpenText LoadRunner Professional."
"The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period."
"The solution is quite stable."
"A very comprehensive tool that is good for performance testing."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"LoadRunner Professional allowed us to load test potential new payroll solutions that would be implemented throughout the entire organization so that we knew which was best suited to performing well under pressure."
"Paramterization and correlation are important features."
"For such an experienced team as mine, who have been with the product for over ten years, sometimes working with technical support is not that easy."
"The worst thing about it is it did not have zero footprint on your PC."
"They need to focus on minimizing the cost."
"It would be good if we could look forward at the future technology needs we have. I would like to see Micro Focus provide more customer awareness around how LoadRunner can fulfill requirements with Big Data use cases, for example, where you do performance testing at the scale of data lakes... when it comes to technologies our company has yet to adopt, I would like to see an indication from Micro Focus of how one does performance testing and what kinds of challenges can we foresee. Those kinds of studies would really help us."
"They had wanted to change the GUI to improve the look and feel. However, since that time, we see a lot of hanging issues."
"More real-time monitoring should be available for the system under test."
"The installation has not been straightforward, and we have had so many problems. We have had to re-install, try to install on a different machine, etc. We have not been able to launch the LRE server itself yet."
"We are expecting more flexible to use Jenkins in continuous integration going forward."
"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"
"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"There should be more integration with more open-source platforms."
"We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market."
"In terms of improvement, it lacks mobile testing features present in some competitors, like GitMatters, which I find valuable."
"The price of this solution should be cheaper."
"I also use the TrueClient feature for browser-based testing. I found the TrueClient feature to be a bit difficult to use and not very user-friendly for automating scripts."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Load Testing Tools with 81 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 76 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". 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 Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad, Apache JMeter and OpenText ALM / Quality Center, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter, IBM Rational Performance Tester and BlazeMeter. See our OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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.