OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

We primarily use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional to create scripts and run various types of performance tests, as well as to analyze the results.

The most valuable features of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional are scripting and executing the tests.

Instead of having too many graphs and tabs, use the analysis section to get a more simplified defect analysis.

In the next release, I wanted to make the defect analysis part easier and more compact to view in the tool itself. For example, if there are defects in the test or some issues in the test, I would like the analysis to be more detailed and easier to understand.

I am using LoadRunner, but it's a company-sponsored program, I have not purchased the tool.

I have been working with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for eight years on many different projects.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is a stable solution. 

We did not have any issues with the stability, or the performance of this solution.

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.

I have not interacted with technical support.

This is my company that purchases the tool, and once an issue arrives, we will contact them and they will connect with technical support.

The contact is with our IT department.

Previously, I have not used any other solution.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

I would rate the initial setup a four out of five, it was simple.

I am not aware of the pricing.

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

I use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional primarily for performance testing.

It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it.

They are immediately upgrading and providing the patch in this manner. It's good.

The drawback is that it is very expensive.

It is already a well-known tool with a vast number of features. The only issue is what they are actually making up for the asking rate.  A lot of people are unable to pay that much money in the industry.

I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support.

The price is too expensive.

I've been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for the last ten years and LoadRunner exclusively for the last twenty.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is 100 percent stable.

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 technical support a one out of five.

The technical support is very bad.

They are not providing any technical support, even though we have a support license. They have only hired people with zero knowledge.

They are completely unresponsive.

If I run into any problems or have any issues, I will resolve them only by myself. I will not rely on any technical support. If I raise a support ticket, they will actually require my setting for more than a month or two to solve a very simple problem.

Negative

I am new to this company. I only use the company website and the CS portal. Other than that, I do not use any of the other products.

I work in performance testing and I am currently using RadView or WebLOAD, as well as a Micro Focus LoadRunner and Silk Performer. At the same time, I used a couple of IBM products, including SLAMD and the rational performance tester. Aside from that, I use a variety of other products such as JMeter and others.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I would rate the initial setup a five out of five.

Pricing depends on our choices because it depends on what type of protocol we are getting, what type of licensing we are getting, and what kind of relationships we have with HP and Micro Focus. We can't say how much it will be based on that.

I cannot say because we are technical managers and I am not involved in any costing or pricing issues. I am not involved with any pricing.

I would rate the pricing a one out of five. It is expensive.

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

Without a doubt, it is an excellent product.

We use OpenText LoadRunner Professional to run performance test for codes.

The solution helps my clients save time. It is easier to capture reports and improves product quality. The product helps to identify customer defects during performance tests and reduces workloads. The product has improved my client's user interaction. It has reduced peak load times.

The tool needs to work on capture script feature.

The product is very stable.

OpenText LoadRunner Professional's technical support is good. However, I do not contact them often.

Positive

OpenText LoadRunner Professional is easier to use than IBM. It supports a lot of protocols compared to competitors.

The tool's deployment is easy and can be completed in one to two days.

The solution's pricing is expensive.

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

We use the solution to help customers test web applications. 

I am impressed with the tool's correlation function. 

I would like the solution to include monitoring capacity. 

I have been working with the product for more than 10 years. 

I would rate the solution's stability a nine out of ten.

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

I would rate the product's setup a nine out of ten. It's easy and straightforward. The tool's deployment took one hour to complete. 

I would rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the product a nine out of ten. 

The solution is used for scripting and debugging. 

I've found the option - remote application via LoadRunner Proxy to be the most valuable feature which played vital role in recording network traffic of mobile application. Very helpful for mobile scripting

It supports a wide range of protocols, which I don't think any other load-testing tool can offer.

It's very stable and reliable. 

The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging.

The installation process and the initial configuration could be a little easier.

We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly.

For someone that doesn't have a lot of experience with the solution, it might be challenging. Even after five years of using it, I still find it challenging. 

The solution can be quite expensive.

There is slow performance when you are opening multiple instances on one machine.

Five years.

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs, glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

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

Tech support is very responsive and knowledgeable

Positive

So far, I have also used JMeter. Compared to JMeter, LoadRunner is the best tool out there. As per the feedback from my peers, most of them prefer LoadRunner in terms of performance testing - executions, scripting and debugging (which provides more insight during our work)

The initial setup and configuration is pretty complex. 

I'd rate the solution a three out of five in terms of ease of setup.

It is very expensive compared to the other tools available in the market. 

I'd rate it a two out of five in terms of affordability.

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

I use this product primarily for performance testing in various software applications. There are web-related use cases, as well.

The most valuable feature is the ability to create performance test cases quickly and then execute them. It provides a lot of powerful features to do that very efficiently and effectively.

The flexibility could be improved. For example, there are some use cases where I prefer to use NeoLoad rather than LoadRunner because of the flexibility that it provides.

I have been working with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for the past 10 to 15 years.

We have had no significant issues with stability or performance.

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

There are issues from time to time that we need help with. There have been specific problems that we reached out to the vendor about, and they have mostly been resolved on time.

I am satisfied with the support.

I have used several other performance testing tools.

One of the other ones that I have used is NeoLoad, which is a more recent entrant in this space. It's a lot more flexible to use than some other products.

When it comes to setting up test cases, the process is slightly different in NeoLoad. It is a little more automated than LoadRunner.

NeoLoad is also more cost-effective than LoadRunner.

The suitability of one product over another depends on the use case. Both of them have their strengths. LoadRunner is a much more longstanding and mature product in the market.

The initial setup is a complex process that is not too straightforward. However, with some expertise, it is not a big problem.

It took a couple of days for us to deploy.

We did most of the implementation internally. I handled it myself.

LoadRunner is more expensive than some competing products.

The pricing is a little too high. However, everything is mostly included in the initial license. It depends on how many nodes you want to set up. This is what determines some of the additional costs.

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.

We use the solution for load testing. 

The executive management is more confident when they go for production. They know that the performance issues are already addressed. 

The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation. 

The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays. 

I have been using the product for three to four years. 

The solution is stable. 

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise's pricing is reasonable. 

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. 

We are customers of Micro Focus and I'm an end-user.

Graph monitoring is a valuable feature. 

Some form of automation is needed in this product, whether it's integration with CI/CD or providing the facility to import JSON files, so that we can automatically create the scripts. I think it's reasonable to expect that kind of feature. 

I've been using this solution for four years. 

The solution is stable although we sometimes face issues in developing scripts but it's a problem that can be easily reverified and edited.

The solution is scalable.

Customer support is available online and it's good enough for solving the general problems that pop up. 

The setup is straightforward. We are a large company so I'm not sure how many are using this solution. In my department there are four users on our current project. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10.