I would rate LoadRunner Professional a ten out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten because single-page applications and some cloud functional testing could be improved.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We're customers and end-users.

We have both the professional version as well as the cloud version.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

In terms of the cloud version, it definitely takes care of the issue of maintaining all the servers for you, ramping them up consistently. There are very few outages as far as that goes.

I recommend LoadRunner to everyone because they have a community with 50 concurrent users. Micro Focus has done standard testing and guarantees the use of LoadRunner in this case. With an open source tool, however, there is no guarantee, and you would be using it at your own risk.

The purpose of using a tool like this is to reduce application performance risk. So, using a tool at your own risk to reduce the risk is not reasonable. Therefore, I recommend using LoadRunner and rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

If your team doesn't have much exposure to the development side, this is a good solution because you don't need much customization. You get a lot of automated features.

I would definitely recommend choosing the SaaS option rather than the on-premises option. The on-premises version has a lot of issues. For example, I'm dealing with version 12.63, and very soon, this particular version will be obsolete in terms of support. You will have to keep updating it in order to get the support for your version.

If you're looking for a tool which gives you more insight and you're ready to pay some extra dollars for it, then you should go for Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional. However, if you need a simple, aim-and-shoot tool for load testing and getting stats out, then you probably don't need this tool that has an expensive license.

Apart from the cost, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is one of the natural product choices in the industry. So, I would rate it at nine out of ten. If the cost were relatively lower, then I would've given it a ten.

We used the solution's TruClient feature for browser-based testing about five years ago. It is quite good, but it consumes a lot of resources on the machine. It helped us a lot with scripting, but there are a lot of limitations as well when it comes to execution.

LoadRunner is not a tool for tuning, but it supports system tuning. Most of the time, once we use LoadRunner or whatever tools for performance testing, in the end, the system will have better performance. Most of the time, in the first run, the performance is not good. Then we tune it and everything is better and we can live-test the system.

If I rank LoadRunner without the pricing disadvantage and only on the technical functionality, I would rank it nine out of 10.

OpenText LoadRunner Professional aligns well with the specific requirements. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. One of the biggest reasons is the TrueClient feature. It's very difficult to automate scripts with the TrueClient protocol.

I would rate OpenText LoadRunner Professional nine out of ten.

I would only recommend LoadRunner Professional's TruClient feature for browser-based testing if it is for a single application as it is easier for scripting.

I would recommend LoadRunner Professional as a helpful, user-friendly tool with a huge knowledge base. The only thing to bear in mind is the higher cost. I would give LoadRunner Professional a rating of eight out of ten.

It's important to have proper parameterization and correlation as part of the scripting. The workflow or modeling has to be done appropriately according to the load that will be required and that needs to be done prior to implementation. Know what your steps will be, how you plan to increase the load and replicate real-world scenarios.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

LoadRunner Professional greatly reduced my workload, I would say around an eight out of ten in an IT context. Its efficiency and helpful features made a substantial impact on the overall workload, streamlining processes and enhancing productivity.

Since using LoadRunner, my application or site has performed well under heavy loads, addressing errors originating from the server. The testing with LoadRunner helped identify and resolve issues, providing confidence in the application's performance even during peak loads.

I haven't had significant security issues since using LoadRunner for the past year. While I haven't explored its security features extensively, I haven't encountered any major problems. Contacting support has been helpful when needed.

Overall, I would rate LoadRunner Professional as an eight out of ten. It is user-friendly, the technical support is helpful, and the installation is straightforward.

We are evaluating Tricentis NeoLoad and will probably go with it because it has additional features and is less expensive.

Overall, I would rate LoadRunner at seven out of ten.

I rate LoadRunner nine out of 10. You can get 50 users for free before you decide to procure the license, but run the script for multiple users.

I'm a consultant. 

I've used LoadRunner XP versions and the latest LoadRunner, the 2021 R1 version.

I would advise new users to start with the professional versions. Then, if you have a requirement for an Enterprise version, you can go ahead and go to the Enterprise version. There is a free trial for 50 users. It's a good idea to take advantage of that. That way, you can try it out and see if LoadRunner's the better tool for you, for your organization, and you can look at pricing to see if it is a good match. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional a nine out of ten.

I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional a ten out of ten.

Without a doubt, it is an excellent product.

I would rate the product a nine out of ten. 

Micro Focus LoadRunner is the best tool in the market. There are many open-source tools but most have limitations, Micro Focus does not. 

I would rate this solution a 9 out of 10.

I'm satisfied with the product. I'd rate it nine out of ten. 

My advice for anybody who is looking into implementing LoadRunner is to try it out. Start playing with the product and test it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise has helped us save time by five to ten percent. The tool has helped us improve product quality. 

We use the TruClient feature, and it has helped us reduce scripting. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10.

I would suggest that if you have a site that needs to be used by a lot of people or if it's for enterprise applications where consumption is high, then it's a good tool. Otherwise, if there are fewer users or not a lot of load, then I would say that other tools might be handy. If you require performance-oriented applications, then it's a good tool. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

LoadRunner is still my first choice. There's still no competition to LoadRunner. In the sense, there are tools out there. I know without a doubt, very good tools. But again, LoadRunner to me is more versatile and has more breadth of coverage.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

• We look at the product itself. In the sense, the stability of the product, etc.
• In terms of the vendor, we look at the thought leadership and the roadmap. That's something we always look into. Just to see, is the vendor a good investment. For example, are they going to stick around for a long time?
• We want them to innovate. In the sense, if you think about how quickly the technologies are changing. We want the vendor that we are looking into to focus on innovation.

To start working on performance testing, we need to use LoadRunner to understand all the concepts. LoadRunner helps us understand how the actual user distribution happens. After using LoadRunner, we can work on JMeter. JMeter doesn't have any script writing so we can manage it with the elements in the tool. Later, we can shift to any of the developer version tools.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

If you have enough money, then you can go ahead with the solution.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

My advice to others is that this solution is good and they should 

I rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional a nine out of ten.

I'm involved in catering the needs of my company's performance testing for all the applications. We use a variety of HP products but our team, where I'm concerned more is HP LoadRunner. We are also upgrading into Performance Center as we speak. We are more into HP LoadRunner.

LoadRunner has easy usability right now, and it's pretty much documented on the features, and has a how-to-do use of videos, learning materials. It's easy to use once you have some basic training and you can get along easily. It will give your company return of investment I believe if you're in invest in it.

This is a very mature tool that is always improving and has very good support as well. More or less, they're always trying to revolve their limitations.

In order to use LoadRunner, you need specific skills. In order to use tools of this type then you need performance engineering skills. My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is first to be clear about your use case and what you are trying to do. Develop and follow up on your own performance-testing strategy before implementing LoadRunner. That said, I highly recommend this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

These days, testing is not a separate activity. It's more about how fast you can quickly deliver and time to market. This is a product that I can recommend, although it depends on the use case. The first question has to be one of budget because LoadRunner is not cheap. Things differ from company to company. At the same time, not all of the free tools can perform all of the functions. It is based on requirements.

If they're a small company, such as a startup e-commerce company, then they might be better off implementing an open-source product.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Make sure you take into consideration how much overhead LoadRunner is adding to the load.

it is a best of breed product with some minor frustrations around product support.

We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market.

I rate OpenText LoadRunner Professional an eight out of ten.

I like using LoadRunner and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We're partners with OpenText.

I'd advise other organizations, if cost is not a problem, to consider LoadRunner, as it is the best product on the market. However, it's not cost-effective for a small company. It's much more suited for enterprises. Smaller companies should look at other options. 

It's a good solution within the market, but it is costly in this region. It is very high. For some it might not make sense when the cost is so high and the support is somewhat lacking.

From an ease of use, installation, deployment, and multi-use tool perspective, I'd rank the solution definitely at an eight or nine out of ten. However, once you include the cost, I'd reduce the ranking to seven out of ten.

Advice that I would give people considering LoadRunner is that I would recommend exploring other tools first or at least in comparison. There are lots of really good open-source or even just cheaper alternatives. Depending on your use case, the other options might be much better. LoadRunner has broad protocol coverage. Sometimes you have got no choice but to go with a solution because of what it can do. But I think the days of LoadRunner being the only solution out there for this kind of testing have gone. There are some very good competitors now and where the competitor can do the job, you will save money.  

On the scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional as about a six. I have not taken a good look at the latest version, but my current experience with the version of the product we use has not been great.  

When you compare other products to LoadRunner, LoadRunner has been in the market for a long time. You could use it to integrate with everything. Also, it can generate an input that we can use in any version, it can improve our performance, and we can put input in and we get a command from LoadRunner for that.

My advice to others would be to look into the application differently. In the next version, I would like to see an easier way to create and use TruClient for development and to move it to another version. They already have this function, but it is not very user-friendly. You cannot do a correlation of things now, because it is on a higher level now. So you have to do a lot of work. 

My rating for this solution is nine out of ten. I've used it a lot, so I guess it's possible to make things better, but it's been around for a while, so I think it's very good.

If you are looking for customer satisfaction, you can simply go and get it.

I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Take a good look at your requirements, LoadRunner is the best for those who need a full blown product, or a diverse range of protocols to be tested. However not everyone needs this. There are other products that do parts of what LoadRunner does just as well and cheaper. Because LoadRunner is so widely used, there are many people with LoadRunner experience available, it will be harder to find experience in an alternative tool. There are cheaper and free alternatives, but these generally take longer to set up and use. Often the software licence costs are far less than the professional services cost for a performance testing engagement. The higher cost of a LoadRunner licence will be offset by time saved by using it.

I'm really happy with what they’re giving me for what I do, but because I don't do performance monitoring or performance testing using LoadRunner, I'm not completely aware of everything else, but for what I do it's a great tool for me.

Do a POC with your own environment and don't rely on the list of capabilities that a solution just gives you doing a demo in your environment. That's what is the key thing for you to decide on what is the solution that you want.

I would definitely recommend using LoadRunner. Use the latest two client protocols for object scripting.

We have only web-based services, mobile testing in scope, and the user load is maximum 1000, so we could have used NeoLoad, but there were lots of other factors in switching.

I would give LoadRunner around 8 out of 10 in the review, considering the fact, that I know how good the tool is. There are a few areas for improvement, the results, and the monitoring tools. Other than that, I think I'm pretty satisfied with LoadRunner.

It covers the most technology, is the most reliable, it gives us the most features.

It's not a 10 out of 10 because of the issues with integrations and it's not quite the one solution, the one-part solution for everything.

I don't know if it's really the product's fault but there are products that, later on, I can't test or can't script against or can't replay against and it's just understanding whether that's a limitation of the tool or a limitation of the product. Part that is design as well as trying to actually script against it.

Our clients are mostly government agencies and enterprises. I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

LoadRunner has a variety of options and different protocols that will support all types of applications categories like web application, monitor and any internal applications or desktop applications. The customization protocol also is user-friendly and if I have to rate the solution, I will give it a nine out of ten. In the next version I would like to see specific protocols when I want to do performance settings for any desktop clients. 

I don't think there's a better product for all systems.

I will suggest to first understand what is your requirement and then list down the tools available, which can help in delivery. We need to make an appropriate choice by keeping the budget in mind. If pricing is not an issue then choose LoadRunner, else evaluate other options.

Don't make a blind decision. Don't just say, "Pick LoadRunner, because we are telling you to."

Look at the other solutions as well. I'm pretty sure they will soon enough determine that Loadrunner is the market leader, and there is a good reason for it.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: Our company looks for the region and their attention to consider our recommendations in terms of which tools to buy, how to go about testing, and how to avoid testing. You don't want to test too much, as well. These are some of the things. If we get any hints on whether the management is more inclined to work with us. That's what we look for.

I would recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional above all other testing tools.

I rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional a nine out of ten.

We started using the solution when it was version 8.2 and now we are on version 10.6. We use the on-premises deployment model. 

I would recommend the solution to others. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

You must test them on different protocols and on different transactions to see if it is good or not.

Personally, I don't understand HPE’s global strategy, i.e., how to sell the services and so on. It's so different from other companies. Every company includes services and stocks materials. However, in regards to HPE’s strategy it seems to me, that they increase parts and materials and instead stock on services. This is my view of HPE and I need to increase my understanding of their strategy.

The reporting tool isn’t so good. Sometimes, we must hesitate between the different types of protocols to obtain the results. That can seem a bit difficult.

My advice would be to use it.

HP offers extensive documentation and support services to help its customer base. True, the product costs a few bucks more than the (open source) alternatives like Neoload, QA Load and others, but in my opinion you get a solid performance test in return (if properly executed of course).