We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise and OpenText Silk Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."For me, the test coverage and the performance and load testing aspects are valuable."
"It is also good for reporting purposes, which would be most familiar for QC and UFT users."
"With Performance Center, the version upgrade is easy. You just have to roll out the new patch or the new version."
"Probably its prime advantage, it provides a centralized location for testing."
"It is mostly user-friendly and usable."
"We implemented through the vendor, who used highly-skilled professionals."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting, correlations, and parameterization. Debugging is also easy."
"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."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"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."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"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."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"Offering a direct integration feature would ensure a completely smooth experience."
"After they get over the acquisition, the first improvement is going to be tailoring it for their existing stack of other products. How would LoadRunner work for Documentum? How would it work for Business Network? How would it work for other apps? They can have a pre-package or a guide because they are all in the same family as opposed to being outside."
"They need to focus on minimizing the cost."
"The worst thing about it is it did not have zero footprint on your PC."
"The solution is a very expensive tool when compared with other tools."
"The solution is expensive."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise needs to add more features for Citrix performance-based applications testing. This was one of the challenges we observed. Additionally, we experienced some APIs challenges."
"We'd like the product to include protocol identifiers whenever a tester wants to test a new application."
"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."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"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."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while OpenText Silk Test is ranked 25th in Functional Testing Tools. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while OpenText Silk Test is rated 7.6. 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 Silk Test writes "Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Apache JMeter, whereas OpenText Silk Test is most compared with Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, OpenText UFT Developer, Apache JMeter and froglogic Squish.
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.
