We have no problems with scalability. We have tons of licenses. We have 5,000 web and SAP licenses. We have had no problems from the LoadRunner side. We only have problems on the applications side.

It's a pretty scalable solution. We never had any issues with scalability. But our load is not as big as a giant enterprise might have.

It's definitely scalable. It depends on the use case.

It is a very scalable solution that supports a wide range of application types and can handle increasing load demands. I would rate it nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. While the solution is scalable, there is an associated cost.

The solution is scalable. The whole objective of LoadRunner is scalability. In the organization, we had somewhere around 20 users supporting multiple customers. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate the scalability at seven.

It's a highly scalable tool. There are processes that can be added and can scale vertically and horizontally. 

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is a scalable product.

Our company has a large number of users. This solution is used on a daily basis by approximately 500 people.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is 100 percent scalable.

We have 500 users in our organization.

I may use it 12 to 15 times per year.

I would rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten. We have around 1000 virtual users for the product. 

Micro Focus is scalable.

For scalability, I will use LoadRunner Enterprise, not LoadRunner Professional. LoadRunner Professional is purely for scripting and debugging purposes.

It is easy to scale and configure. We have approximately 50 people that work with it.

The solution is scalable.

It's a scalable product in terms of it's running or technology wise. 

In my previous experience with previous employers working with some retailers, we had to run some extremely large tests, and even at my current company, we go up to about 3000 content users. I think it's fairly scalable. We run very small tests, obviously, with StormRunner. It's can probably scale to much higher levels, but within our boundaries of demands, it's scaled very well.

The solution is scalable. We would need more machines based on our script complexity, based on which we need to assess how many load generators we need to run. We can support the cloud load generators if we have a cloud account. Otherwise, we can choose k6 or Gatling because they support more virtual users for a given hardware resource. It is a simple web application. We can choose open-source tools rather than using a paid load testing tool.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. Scalability is good. I can generate the number of user loads while adding a number of cloud instances and execute them anytime. I didn't see any issues with the tool while trying to scale at a large level.

Around 10 to 15 performance engineers are using the solution in my company. Also, the solution is used daily, and I mostly use it in the client environment.

So, it's currently used at its maximum rate.

The scalability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is good. I can scale up and it has wide support for different protocols. Pretty powerful in terms of logins to different pipelines, such as Gen Kings.

We have approximately 30 to 40 customers and approximately 300 users using the solution.

Scalability, I think with the previous versions maybe I was not sure but the new version which I'm seeing, and the cool features what they are showing off, I think scalability is very good, you could scale up the tool within no time.

LoadRunner is scalable, although there are some limitations that depend on the application type. That is where you need to scale by adding more load generators. 

We have approximately ten people who are using LoadRunner in the company.

We have six or seven people using this product.

You scale up based on the amount of load that you want to put on your application. No problem there. They have really good products, and I'm looking forward to the next project, HPE Agile Manager.

No, the application is scalable. Additional load testing capacity can be added quickly and easily by adding another load generator. Also, some GUI based scripting protocols such as TruClient do utilize large amounts of memory and CPU power, which needs to be planned for carefully if running tests over long periods with lots of users.

The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it is quite scalable.

We've had no issues scaling it for our needs.

It's a scalable solution but I think that the Enterprise version is more scalable and more manageable.

It's fine for us, as we only have a few projects a year. On a larger scale, Enterprise would be better than the Professional edition.

The solution is quite scalable. We've run tests with 20,000-30,000 users with no problem. You can add as much as you want, depending on the kind of license you hold. There may be certain licenses that offer limitations. However, with the right license, there sholdn't be issues with regard to scaling.

We don't plan on scaling further ourselves. The plan for the future, right now, is to reduce the usage and include some freeware tools to supplement our needs. 

We have not been totally satisfied with the scalability. We tend to have more issues with Performance Center. The more you try to grow use with it on-prem, the more headaches you have. Often working with LoadRunner and smaller environments is more reliable. We believe the SaaS solution might be better because you have got centralized management.  

We can scale it up at any point in time because we can get a distributor. We can add variants, controllers, claims, and analyzers, so it will support different types of protocols.

We just created load scenarios and we will load the scenarios to a number of virtual users. For example, we can load around 1,000 users for each scenario. In abnormal conditions, we could have 10,000 users. Also, loading them depends upon the role alias and role controller's configuration.

The size of staff required for deployment and maintenance depends upon what application and how many load scenarios you want to do, as well as the complexity of your application, how much hardware you have, and how much software support you have. All of those things will come into the picture.

They would be different types of users like a read-only user, a write-only user, etc.

We use JMeter and LoadRunner together: When we're stress testing and for service or load testing we use JMeter, while we use LoadRunner for basic load testing. We keep it like that but we can see how that mitigation works and the application is also for internal users, so we consider what it does there and we can do a lot of those things.

I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients. It eats lots of memory, so usually, I have two or three low generators while I have the one controller. We have had some problems with when we are using a BPM system. In the beginning, it was quite difficult when we changed to this other system and we wanted to connect to the home computer. 

We have about 12 users, mostly testers, working on the solution currently. Then we have two people working in our performance center. 

It's very scalable. No issues with scalability.

No issues encountered.

LoadRunner Professional is scalable for small organizations but struggles with more than twenty or thirty agents.

Scalability is great, I have personally used LoadRunner with up to 72,000 virtual users, and 35 load generators.

We don't use it for performance testing so scalability is artificial for LoadRunner for us.

It scales very, very well.

We haven't encountered any issues while scaling.

In terms of driving, LoadRunner is at a level that is a little riddled but otherwise, it's been a good thing. LoadRunner has the kind of features that are much more advanced. The comparison is IIS & NeoLoad. It is very scalable.

Scalability is good. There are lots of different options ranging from the freely available versions through to Enterprise and Performance Center. And obviously features like StormRunner Load allow you to scale more quickly and effectively.

We're a pretty large department within our company. We have an enterprise license agreement and can simply get more licenses if we need more controllers.

It is easier to scale when you have the online, cloud option.

We probably have about 200 users and in the future, we may increase our usage.

We have about 200 users and the scalability is good so far. We don't plan to increase our usage so I am not sure how scalable it will be with more users.

Scalability is not that important for LoadRunner since we don't have many people working on it at the same time.

I have experienced scalability issues.

It's highly scalable. LoadRunner can connect to any number of agents, and you can have multiple controllers, which is obviously a different licensing model.

The scalability is good.

The solution is scalable. I don't see a problem with scaling, because you can schedule multiple instances.

No.

The scalability is good.

The scalability is fine with us.

It is scalable. The biggest we've done is 20,000, but I know it can be done bigger.

No issues encountered.