We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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."I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional's stability at eight out of ten."
"The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"The initial setup and installation of the software were very easy and straightforward."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"I appreciate its ability to handle various internal calls and its user-friendly interface."
"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"The most important feature for us is that it supports a lot of protocols because we support all of them, including HTTP, FTP, mainframe, and others."
"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."
"The pricing model, selling model, and business model need to be adjusted. For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost."
"The monitoring technology in LoadRunner could be improved. It depends on another tool called SiteScope, but they only took a part of the features of SiteScope. They need to improve on that."
"I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator."
"There should be more integration with more open-source platforms."
"The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays."
"Instead of having too many graphs and tabs, use the analysis section to get a more simplified defect analysis."
"I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients."
"Improvement wise, the pipeline should be enabled. It should be embedded as part of the tool itself rather than going with third-party tools. Monitoring should be more effective as well."
"The integrations for this solutions could be improved, specifically for Slack."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 76 reviews while Qualitia Automation Studio is ranked 23rd in Test Automation Tools with 5 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while Qualitia Automation Studio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Qualitia Automation Studio writes "Good Tool for Non Technical Users". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and IBM Rational Performance Tester, 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.