Malli Bharathi MIT Service Delivery Manager Testing and RPA at a transportation company
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"This product is better oriented to large, enterprise-oriented organizations."
"The solution is a very user-friendly tool, especially when you compare it to a competitor like BlazeMeter."
"This is a product that has a lot of capabilities and is the most mature tool of its kind in the market."
"The most valuable part of the product is the way you can scale the basic testing easily."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly."
"I think the number one feature everybody likes is the capability to easily generate virtual users as well as the reporting."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
"While the stability is generally good, there are a few strange issues that crop up unexpectedly which affect consistent use of the product."
"The solution is a very expensive tool when compared with other tools."
"The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved."
"Third-party product integrations could be a little more slickly handled."
"The reporting has room for improvement."
"It's not that popular on the cloud."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."
"It is a bit expensive, especially for smaller organizations, but over-all it can save you money."
"The price is okay. You're able to buy it, as opposed to paying for a full year."
"They have a much more practical pricing model now."
"Our licensing fees are on a yearly basis, and while I think that the price is quite reasonable I am not allowed to share those details."
"We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."
Micro Focus Performance Center is a global cross-enterprise performance testing tool which enables you to manage multiple, concurrent performance testing projects across different geographic locations without any need to travel between the locations. Performance Center administers all your internal performance testing needs. With Performance Center, you manage all aspects of large-scale performance testing projects, including resource allocation and scheduling, from a centralized location accessible through the Web. Performance Center helps streamline the testing process, reduce resource costs, and increase operating efficiency.
Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 6 reviews while Silk Test is ranked 13th in Functional Testing Tools with 6 reviews. Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 7.6, while Silk Test is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Tests the performance of our applications and has the ability to share the screen while you are running a test". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Silk Test writes "An easy to use interface with a recording feature that our business users are happy with". Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter, Micro Focus ALM Quality Center and Eggplant Performance, whereas Silk Test is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Selenium HQ, Apache JMeter and Sauce Labs.
See our list of .
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.