We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise and Original Software Qualify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."Provides the performance of load test applications and reliably on good reporting."
"IP Spoofing can be done using Performance Center."
"The most valuable feature is the Vuser protocols."
"It's a very powerful tool."
"We can measure metrics like hits per second and detect deviations or issues through graphs. We can filter out response times based on timings and identify spikes in the database or AWS reports."
"With Performance Center, the version upgrade is easy. You just have to roll out the new patch or the new version."
"It is also good for reporting purposes, which would be most familiar for QC and UFT users."
"The initial setup was straightforward. I was able to download everything myself without any IT support."
"Flexible software with multiple functions, e.g. scenario deployment, new entity creation, workflow creation, etc. Technical support for this software is very good."
"We are expecting more flexible to use Jenkins in continuous integration going forward."
"While the stability is generally good, there are a few strange issues that crop up unexpectedly which affect consistent use of the product."
"The debugging feature needs to include graphs."
"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."
"I'd rate the scalability a six out of ten. The main reason is that it's a very expensive application. Other companies might not be able to afford it. For example, if we need to test an application with 10,000 concurrent users, the license can cost a lot of money. That's where OpenText tools shoot themselves in the foot compared to other tools. Because of the price, many companies, like one I used to work for, decided not to renew their licenses and switched to open-source testing tools."
"Third-party product integrations could be a little more slickly handled."
"It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems."
"I have seen some users report some issues, but I have personally not had any issues."
"The reporting engine of Original Software Qualify AQM needs to change. It's very difficult to develop complex reports. Its reporting function needs improvement."
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 Original Software Qualify is ranked 35th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while Original Software Qualify is rated 9.0. 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 Original Software Qualify writes "Flexible, multifunctional, and stable testing software with good technical support". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Apache JMeter, whereas Original Software Qualify is most compared with .
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.