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.
"IP Spoofing can be done using Performance Center."
"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"The product is good, and the concept is good as well."
"The solution is a very user-friendly tool, especially when you compare it to a competitor like BlazeMeter."
"It is mostly user-friendly and usable."
"It is also good for reporting purposes, which would be most familiar for QC and UFT users."
"We haven't had an outage since we started using the solution."
"For me, the test coverage and the performance and load testing aspects are valuable."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the drag-and-drop options and the integration with versioning tool solutions, such as Git."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are its robust functionality and collaboration capabilities."
"The initial setup of ReadyAPI is straightforward."
"The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the scripting tools and the connectivity to external data sources, such as Excel and PDF files. There are plenty of useful features that are useful, such as automating flexibility and usability. Overall, the solution is easy to use."
"When we are doing API testing we have found it to be very efficient to receive results. Additionally, you are able to do tests directly from the API."
"It is the best solution you can get across the globe for API, test automation, and API penetration testing."
"A single platform for functional testing, load testing security, and service actualization."
"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."
"The solution is a very expensive tool when compared with other tools."
"The solution is expensive."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise doesn't support some mainframe protocols. We had to build scripts to access the interface."
"We are expecting more flexible to use Jenkins in continuous integration going forward."
"Integration can be tricky during the setup process."
"Canned reports are always a challenge and a question with customers because customers want to see sexy reports."
"The debugging feature needs to include graphs."
"In terms of features, I have already raised different change requests on the ReadyAPI side. One of the largest functions I've requested is the validation of the payload for the REST APIs."
"There are lots of options within the solution, however they are not upfront or user-friendly."
"The solution is made up of multiple tools, and the one additional feature we'd like to have is load testing."
"The initial setup could be less complex."
"Areas for improvement include the security files, endpoints, and process sessions."
"Sometimes, if I changed something in ReadyAPI, it would not quickly pick up the change. It used to give me the same error repeatedly, and when I closed the application completely and restarted it, it would pick up that change."
"There is a lot of room for improvement, mainly from the point of view of integrating ReadyAPI into the CI pipelines, and also the scripting aspect into Bitbucket."
"ReadyAPI could improve by adding a conversion tool from one file type to another. Import support for multiple file types would be beneficial."
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 33 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.6. 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.
