We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Cloud and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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."The TCO has been optimized along with the total ROI."
"The solution can scale."
"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 most valuable feature is that we do not have to accommodate the load-testing infrastructure in our own data center."
"The fact that the solution supports multiple protocols such as open source, VuGen, TruWeb, TruClient, and SAP is very important because these protocols help us to concentrate on what is really needed to produce performance tests. If something is not supported, you have to use other tools or find other ways of assimilating loads."
"The solution is easy to use."
"Keeping up with DevOps, thus the best feature of StormRunner is that we don't have to build and maintain infrastructure anymore."
"What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"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."
"I think the number one feature everybody likes is the capability to easily generate virtual users as well as the reporting."
"Probably its prime advantage, it provides a centralized location for testing."
"We have Performance Center as a platform to share with others that don't do performance testing full-time, so that they in an agile fashion, on demand can go ahead and get real issue-finding testing done."
"We have a centralized delivery team and we are able to meet enterprise requirements, which include different types of protocols that are involved, including scripting. The technology supports that and enables us to have a wider range of testing. Enterprise-level testing is something that we are satisfied with."
"For me, the test coverage and the performance and load testing aspects are valuable."
"We haven't had an outage since we started using the solution."
"Their documentation is not technical enough for us. We would like to have much deeper technical documentation so that we can self-serve without constantly having to go back to them and ask."
"The support team provides delayed responses."
"Reporting and analysis need improvement. Compared to the old school LoadRunner Windows application, the reporting and analysis are mediocre in LoadRunner Cloud."
"Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved."
"I would like for there to be better integration with other tools so that when you do load testing you can also do a security check."
"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."
"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."
"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 cost of the solution is high and can be improved."
"The installation has not been straightforward, and we have had so many problems. We have had to re-install, try to install on a different machine, etc. We have not been able to launch the LRE server itself yet."
"Third-party product integrations could be a little more slickly handled."
"The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and by including autocorrelation capability."
"The worst thing about it is it did not have zero footprint on your PC."
"It's not that popular on the cloud."
"The price of this solution could be less expensive. However, this category of solutions is expensive."
"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."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2, while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud writes "Enterprise modeling, server maintenance, and competitive pricing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Tricentis NeoLoad, BlazeMeter, Apache JMeter and OpenText UFT One, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad, Apache JMeter and OpenText ALM / Quality Center. See our OpenText LoadRunner Cloud vs. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load 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.