We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise and ReadyAPI based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Our main use case for the product was load and stress testing. It helped us put the system under stress by injecting in multiple users, such as 5,000 users."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is recording and replaying, and the fact that there are multiple options available to do this."
"For me, LoadRunner stands out, especially with its reporting capabilities, the graphs that can be generated, and the unique feature of measuring our application's response alongside our infrastructure metrics, such as CPU, memory, or disk usage, all presented in graph form. This is something other applications struggle to match."
"This product is better oriented to large, enterprise-oriented organizations."
"Provides the performance of load test applications and reliably on good reporting."
"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."
"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"It is mostly user-friendly and usable."
"It is the best solution you can get across the globe for API, test automation, and API penetration testing."
"The performance testing capabilities are very good."
"The interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them."
"It has the ability to combine it with different CI/CD tools."
"I haven't seen any other tool that offers both types of tests. This is very helpful for us, and it's one of the main reasons why we chose this service."
"The dashboards are very good and consolidate all of the tests that you are performing with the client."
"The most valuable feature is being able to run each version for test suites."
"The initial setup of ReadyAPI is straightforward."
"The cost of the solution is high and can be improved."
"New features have been added in latest version and need to be improved with the DevOps integration."
"Integration can be tricky during the setup process."
"The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and by including autocorrelation capability."
"OpenText needs to improve in terms of support. With the same support plan but when the product was owned by HP, support was more responsive and better coordinated."
"It is tough to maintain from the infrastructure side."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise doesn't support some mainframe protocols. We had to build scripts to access the interface."
"They need to focus on minimizing the cost."
"There are lots of options within the solution, however they are not upfront or user-friendly."
"It doesn't have connectors to the NoSQL database. This is one of the things where they do not have a very solid strategy today. Other solutions have an in-built mechanism where I can directly and easily connect. An API is more around a user submitting a request on the frontend. It then hits the backend, puts the data, and responds back. If I am hitting MongoDB or NoSQL databases, I do not have ready-made inbuilt solutions in ReadyAPI that can easily help me in automating it faster. In our organization, we deal with NoSQL databases, and therefore, we need Groovy. We just cannot have a connector from ReadyAPI to do that. I have to write Groovy scripts. If you have themes that are predominantly using MongoDB, it leads to more maintenance and support activity because we are introducing more code into our commission. In terms of additional features, it can have cloud support. This is one of the things where we are getting into cloud support. We'll see how it works, but it is one of the doubts that we still have."
"Many users will consider this solution expensive compared to the layout. It is more expensive than other solutions."
"The solution is made up of multiple tools, and the one additional feature we'd like to have is load testing."
"They have performance testing also. However, it's not that great."
"The initial setup could be less complex."
"Can be improved by including an inherent feature for UI automation."
"Better compatibility or more support for the older versions would be helpful."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Performance Testing Tools with 34 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.8. 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 ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Eggplant Performance, whereas ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, ReadyAPI Test and Tricentis Tosca. See our OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise vs. ReadyAPI report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors.
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.
