We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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."The TruClient feature is the most valuable for us. An application with testing can only be scripted using TruClient, so it's part web-based, but it also has its own protocol combined with HTTP and HTML. So many other tools do not recognize this specific proprietary protocol. Using TruClient, we can still create scripts that cover everything that we need to cover."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the Vuser license; it allows us to reduce the cost as per requirement."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The product supports a wide variety of technology compared to any other tool."
"The most valuable feature is that you can create an infrastructure on-demand and do performance testing with it."
"One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols."
"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."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"Flexible software with multiple functions, e.g. scenario deployment, new entity creation, workflow creation, etc. Technical support for this software is very good."
"An area for improvement is analytics on why response times are slow from certain countries."
"The support team provides delayed responses."
"I'd like to see more ability to dive more deeply into the configuration."
"One area of improvement in the software's support is the replaying of captured data within the development environment. It would be beneficial if the replay feature could accurately mimic what the actual application is doing for better analysis and testing."
"It should have a feature to report with a 99.9 percentile success rate."
"I don't know of any features that should be added. The solution isn't lacking anything at this point."
"There is a steep learning curve for the product, too."
"It doesn't provide custom reports. You can only use the default reports which contain irrelevant data or is missing data that we need."
"The reporting engine of Original Software Qualify AQM needs to change. It's very difficult to develop complex reports. Its reporting function needs improvement."
Earn 20 points
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews while Original Software Qualify is ranked 35th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2, while Original Software Qualify is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud writes "Enterprise modeling, server maintenance, and competitive pricing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Original Software Qualify writes "Flexible, multifunctional, and stable testing software with good technical support". OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter 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.