We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise and Qualitia Automation Studio based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself."
"With Performance Center, the version upgrade is easy. You just have to roll out the new patch or the new version."
"The most valuable aspect of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the overall support it has for a lot of different applications and defined domains."
"We can book load generators."
"The user interface is fine."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's most valuable features are load simulation and creating correlation for parameters."
"This is a product that has a lot of capabilities and is the most mature tool of its kind in the market."
"The best feature of this solution is the fact that it offers scriptless automation. You don't need to know how to code or program to use it."
"More real-time monitoring should be available for the system under test."
"While the stability is generally good, there are a few strange issues that crop up unexpectedly which affect consistent use of the product."
"The cost of the solution is high and can be improved."
"The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and by including autocorrelation capability."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise doesn't support some mainframe protocols. We had to build scripts to access the interface."
"When we have a new application, recording the application is a pretty tough task. We have tried multiple things. We do scripting or try to record with different settings and on different machines. We try to record multiple times, but we do not know why it is recording and why it is not recording. We do the same thing on different machines. It sometimes records, and at other times, it does not. That is one of the major concerns."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, I need to spend a lot of time training people, while on other low-code or no-code platforms, I need not invest that much time."
"They had wanted to change the GUI to improve the look and feel. However, since that time, we see a lot of hanging issues."
"The integrations for this solutions could be improved, specifically for Slack."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while Qualitia Automation Studio is ranked 23rd in Test Automation Tools with 5 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while Qualitia Automation Studio is rated 8.0. 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 Qualitia Automation Studio writes "Good Tool for Non Technical Users". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Apache JMeter, whereas Qualitia Automation Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One and Selenium HQ.
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.
