Prashant SarswatHead - Testing Centre of Excellence at NIIT Technologies Limited
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:
"The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period."
"The initial setup and installation of the software were very easy and straightforward."
"The solution is quite stable."
"The load testing, reporting, and scripting features are all valuable features."
"I like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports."
"The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"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."
"The price of this solution should be cheaper."
"Sometimes we are not be able to click on some of the buttons due to the screen mismatching and compatibility issues."
"I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"The solution uses a lot of memory and then it dies. It's difficult to work with the solution sometimes when you run a scenario it dies. They need to make the solution lighter somehow."
"I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator."
"The debugging capability should be improved."
"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"
"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."
"The licensing fees are based on the number of users."
"It is competing with other products that may cost significantly less or may be available as open-source. Because of that it is relatively expensive."
"LoadRunner Professional is an expensive product."
"This is not a cheap product."
"There is a licensing cost that is expensive."
"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."
LoadRunner is the Micro Focus industry-standard software solution for application performance and load testing. LoadRunner stresses your entire system to isolate and identify potential client, network, and server bottlenecks, supporting performance testing of new technologies together with your existing, legacy applications.
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 13 reviews while Silk Test is ranked 11th in Functional Testing Tools with 6 reviews. Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.0, while Silk Test is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional writes "Very good controller and a market leader, but not cost effective for small business". 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 Professional is most compared with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Neotys NeoLoad, Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and BlazeMeter, whereas Silk Test is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Selenium HQ, Apache JMeter, Tricentis Tosca and Katalon Studio.
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.