We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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."It's fast, easy to use, has a user-friendly UI, and you can split users."
"It's a fast product, so you don't have much trouble in terms of maintenance overhead. You don't want to just look into configuring load generators, look for upgrades, and end up having that take up a lot of your time. With this solution, you just log in and you start using it. This means that there is a huge benefit in terms of the overhead of maintaining the infrastructure and the maintenance effort."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"The solution can scale."
"The most valuable feature is having load generators in countries where we don’t have access to them."
"The product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the Vuser license; it allows us to reduce the cost as per requirement."
"Both the professional and cloud versions of Micro Focus LoadRunner use the same scripting or programming to execute performance modeling operations. This feature allows users to use various programming languages such as Java, C, or C++, which can run within either of the two environments. This flexibility in the programming language is a strong point of the software."
"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."
"Improvements to the reporting would be good."
"In terms of new features, they can natively integrate with Chaos engineering tools such as Chaos Monkey and AWS FIS. With LoadRunner, we can generate load, and if Chaos tools are also supported natively, it will help to get everything together."
"Its scripting features need improvement."
"We encounter hurdles while running the professional version for on-premise setup."
"The support team provides delayed responses."
"We are trying to put it into a complete CI/CD pipeline, but there are still some challenges when you try to run it through different protocols. The challenges are around how you can containerize applications. There are some limitations to some protocols, such as desktop. And when it comes to database testing, there are some things that we can't do through CI/CD."
"I'd like to see more ability to dive more deeply into the configuration."
"I don't know of any features that should be added. The solution isn't lacking anything at this point."
"The integrations for this solutions could be improved, specifically for Slack."
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews while Qualitia Automation Studio is ranked 23rd in Test Automation Tools with 5 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2, while Qualitia Automation Studio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud writes "Enterprise modeling, server maintenance, and competitive pricing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Qualitia Automation Studio writes "Good Tool for Non Technical Users". OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Tricentis NeoLoad, BlazeMeter and Apache JMeter, whereas Qualitia Automation Studio is most compared with Selenium HQ, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText UFT One.
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.