OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

We use the solution for client service applications, mostly web-based applications. There are a lot of service conversions needed in terms of Apple to Apple talking or using with a protocol. If you need what they're offering then I think LoadRunner is a good tool. And it's from HP. Primary use cases are creating code-based operations for the latest updates, and API calls if we are in corporate. I'm a QA leader and we are customers of Micro Focus LoadRunner. 

I think correlation is one of the important features. Correlation, parameterization, those kind of features make things easier.

It's a very expensive tool so I think licensing costs could be reduced. I think their monitoring services in real time could be improved and made more user friendly. 

I've been using this solution for nearly 15 years. 

This is a stable product - I've dealt with it over the past 15 years and it's stable.

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

Their tech support is pretty good. They try to document things and they are organized. I would say I've had good experience with them. 

This is a heavy-duty tool, so it's not a one-click installation. But I think it's comparatively easier with the documentation they provide.

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 one of the most versatile performance testing tools. One thing I really like about LoadRunner is its breadth of coverage. The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing. I could not think about any other tool other than LoadRunner. I've also seen LoadRunner evolve over a period of time, in the sense that it addresses new technologies. I would say it's still a very strong product and there's a lot of new products out there.

Think about the performance testing as a part of the whole of your testing lifecycle. It's our go-to product and that's the only product which we use within the organization right now. Not every project goes through performance testing, but any project that has performance testing is a component of the test lifecycle. It has our de facto standard.

When you think about deploying these applications to production, and our organization being a global company, we have a user footprint across the globe. LoadRunner, along with HPE Envy Network Virtualization: It's a combination where we, not only run business processes in volumes, but also similar to these network conditions, helps us identify some performance issues well in advance. It's one of those risk verifications that we do.

One thing I was desiring a few years ago, before StormRunner came in, I was hoping HPE would come out with some of the new tools that are cloud-based, SAS-based performance testing solutions. With StormRunner coming out, it has probably filled that gap.

You should be able to use LoadRunner as a single platform. You should be able to have browser based access. You should be able to run enterprise tests. HPE addressed a little bit of this by taking over the license for the controller and tying it to the load generators. But in an ideal world, just make it a single platform, everything should be like Performance Center.

I've been using LoadRunner as a performance engineer since 2002. That makes it about 15 years now.

It's such a mature product. It's been out there for a very long time. It has come a long way. It's extremely stable in the sense that I can approach the technical support, as an example. It is because we ran into some challenges with program scripting or something, but generally not because of the application crashing. I'd list my experience with LoadRunner as it being a very stable product.

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.

We use tech support, but not quite often, just when we really run into some problems. We have a really strong internal team, which so a majority of the issues are internally solved. We are either experimenting or knowledge base in everything. We do reach out to tech support, but it's very rarely done (rare cases).

Service depends upon the issue we face. Sometimes we go off on a tangent. It's an exception, but we go down the wrong path. Then, it's a long winding road to the actual resolution. In many cases, if it's a common issue and it's fairly quick, we get pretty good support. I've actually seen both.

In 2002, was the first time I was actually really involved in bringing the tool in. Ever since, I go to new employers, the tool was already there. I help take it to the next level, mature the practice of what not, but again there's only one instance where I really had to bring the tool in, but everywhere else, we already had a tool in place.

Back then, there was no competition. It was the only choice there. After that, whenever I moved companies, the tool was already there. I was involved in the sense of bringing new protocols, new additional licenses, and so on.

I was involved in the initial setup. It's extremely straightforward. I've probably worked on about six or seven different versions, and it's extremely straightforward and fairly simple to setup.

I would still consider LoadRunner as an expensive tool and you get a LoadRunner and the Performance Center.

Once there was situation before StormRunner was out, where we did venture into a tool call. Here I was working for a retailer. We ventured in tool call with SOASTA. We were looking for a cloud-based performance testing solution, and at that time, HPE was not there. Every time I wanted to make a decision, LoadRunner was our default choice and we had nothing else running in contention.

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.

The product gives protocol support to our organization. It is the biggest benefit.

It's a good tool. The solution supports a lot of protocols. The interface is good.

The solution is complex. Integrating the tool into CI/CD pipelines, dockerizing, and containerization is a bit difficult. It is not as easy and user-friendly as doing it in Locust and Gatling. The solution must be more user-friendly. It should provide integrations with Jenkins or GitHub Actions.

Processes like docking and containerization must be made easy for a tester to do the process. If a process takes ten steps, it must be reduced to two to three steps. We should be able to integrate with Docker, Jenkins, or GitHub within two to three steps.

I have been working with the solution for six months.

The tool is stable.

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.

Support is very good. I rate the technical support around eight or nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is not complex. We will be able to install it, but it will take a lot of steps. Open-source tools take two to three steps, while paid tools take eight to ten steps for deployment. The implementation is user-friendly.

I have been using the paid version of the product.

Nowadays, most of the features supported by LoadRunner can be obtained in JMeter. Many development-driven tools like Locust are coming up in the market, which are easy to integrate with CI/CD tools. Dockerizing, containerization, and running the performance test through the CI/CD pipeline are pretty much easier with development-driven tools like Locust and Gatling.

LoadRunner and WebLOAD support a lot of protocols that other open-source tools are not able to support. However, most features supported by these tools are available in the latest tools. Correlation can be done within five to ten minutes in LoadRunner. Whereas, in JMeter, it would take half an hour. JMeter’s UI is simple compared to LoadRunner’s.

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.

Based on the requirements, we use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional. Our clients have their licenses and access. So, we execute in the client environment itself, which involves, basically, running a load test or stress test using the tool and analyzing the system performance with different metrics like server session and clientset.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional improved our organization's functioning. However, the cost is very high, and the support system is very low. If you ask for one ticket, like, you create a case, and they'll come back in one week of time. Then, they keep asking for most of the access to the environment, which is, like, the client's environment, and we can't provide access to the support. So there are a lot of challenges with those things. Upgrading to the new versions has a lot of challenges. The tool, access, and features they are building meet industry standards and are very helpful.

When you speak about its integration capabilities, especially when we talk about the latest version and not the older version that we had integrated with Dynatrace. So, we are integrating the current version with a tensor database and Grafana dashboards. So we can directly communicate it. The current version also integrates with DataDot, where whatever execution is there, we can collate results in DataDot itself and analyze the server-side metrics with that time duration so that everything is in one single place.

The kind of protocols that the current version supports is good since it's improved when compared to Version 12.55. I am very much happy with the tool and its process. The cost and the support lakhs a lot.

The support and price are the downsides of the solution. Micro Focus should decrease the cost. So, I'll explain one scenario. So, I work for multiple different clients to whom I provide support on the subject matter. Regarding the cost, if you consider 20,000 virtual user hours, if a user uses it for ten minutes, one virtual user is down. And if a user uses, like, 100 users for ten minutes, 100 virtual user hours are gone. So, instead of 100 multiplied by ten, it should be the number of minutes that get converted into hours, and that is the number of virtual hours that should be gone. In pay-per-use, the cost is more, and the unlimited license, like, an unlimited number of executions, costs even more. And mobile solutions, like earlier, could be integrated with the mobile center. Now mobile centers are very costly. So, doing it per device and testing has become challenging. I need to depend on other tools where I need to convert those scripts to LoadRunner and then run the test on this tool. So I need to pay two different software techs for licenses to solve mobile performance testing. In short, if that is done within that system, it could be helpful for us.

The licensing system is not very convenient for me. I would like to increase the number of working hours per license. Also, performance testing on mobile devices could be better.

Performance testing on mobile devices requires external software. You have many tools, and you have other tools which support on-device performance testing. So that tools can be integrated with LoadRunner. But, then the cost becomes high. So, if LoadRunner has some specific specialty, like, any on-device testing would be of a single user. If I connect my USB to a laptop and execute the test on a device, and test the application using the number of, like, one user running it for a certain duration of time, then it would be helpful for me to calculate the response time as well as the well device-level metrics like CPU memory or battery consumption. Right now, LoadRunner is lacking in the aforementioned areas.

Testing your kind of WebRTC protocols, like if you have a streaming application, and I want to join 5,000 concurrent user sessions. So, it is a one-session ID for 5,000 users joining that video session, and there is a tutor who is, like, teaching the lessons to the students. So this is a scenario. It's a kind of video conversation. I just want to analyze the number of users, the user behavior, video quality, audio quality, and how many users get dropped from the call. I think the latest version for 2023 doesn't support a few particular things causing lagging issues. It has an MQTT protocol, and executing a test on the Kafka messaging queue, I don't think we need to write a custom Java code and then we need to build those Java JAR files or load agents, and then, normally, we can run it. So there is a dependency. So there are a lot of Java JAR files we need to substitute and run. So instead of that, if LoadRunner itself has that entire tool set installed in their location, and if you can just plug and play the request, it would be good. If you go to Apache JMeter, it's simple, so if you go for ActiveMQ, I give the configuration details and then give a custom message. It is a simple step where I can execute and push thousands to ten thousands of messages to the queue. But in LoadRunner, it is a complex thing.

It's been three years since we tried to migrate from Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional Version 12.55 to LoadRunner Enterprise 2023, but there is no active support from the team. We did not deploy because of a lack of support. We need a license bundle if all things are to be migrated. We have one TB of data that needs to be migrated to the new system.

For maintenance, I think one person is required, and sometimes to update, like, if you do hundreds of activations and browse the tools, which overall has a slowness in general. So maintaining and creating tables and all those stuff requires

support, and I think one resource is required. The person should preferably be an administrator, and he should be aware of the database, repository file system, networking, and all such stuff.

I have been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for ten years. I am an end-user of the solution. I am using Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional Version 12.55, and sometimes for some projects, we use Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise 2022.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

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.

On a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high-quality technical support, I rate the support a one.

Negative

Previously, we were using HP. Though the tool's functionalities remain the same, its ownership keeps getting changed. We go with multiple open-source solutions like JMeter and all.

I rate the initial setup a seven or eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy. Considering my impressions of the product, I understand that it is a commercial tool, and it is very stable and of good quality. In general, it is very good. But, there are multiple factors where we can reject it because of its cost, support, and considering that anything that is very new can be done in the open-source tool. So rather than this particular thing, we need Micro Focus to put in extra effort. So, green screen applications are not supported by the solution. Also, ActiveMQ won't be supported in the solution. So for that, I need to write a custom code. I need to build different Java JAR files. Then, it doesn't support Java 64-bit, which is very poor. It supports only Java 32-bit version. For ActiveMQ and Kafka messaging queues, Java 64-bit is more dependable. So, that is completely redundant.

In the organization part, we have it deployed on-prem. But most of the tool licensing that we use is on the client side itself since the client purchases the tool, and so in their environment, we do the test.

On a scale of one to ten, where one is low and ten is a high price, I rate the solution a five. So, many things can be done with open-source solutions rather than Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional. But LoadRunner provides scalability and stability, which helps save the money of our customers.

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

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

Micro Focus does not have the limitations that other solutions have. It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system. It also has multiple protocols.

The initial start-up of Micro Focus LoadRunner could be improved. When we add 20 or 30 scripts, the refresh is completed one by one. I would like to be able to select all of the script at one time, so it can be completed in a single click, reducing the time required.

I have been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for five and a half years.

The solution is stable.

Micro Focus is scalable.

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.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is an on-premises solution, but we have our own internal cloud where we have deployed it. However, it is considered an on-premise solution.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional can be used on any application. This is a tool we use to create a concurrent transaction on an application. We can do traffic simulating for end-users behavior. 

The most valuable features of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional are the separate module for scripting, execution analysis, and integration with a lot of new things pipeline areas. They keep updating their releases. Recently, they have released different versions, such as the professional and enterprise. They're coming up with new features which are good. 

The most important aspect of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is the security of the tool and what it provides as a result.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional can improve the implementation of digital areas, such as digital testing, UI and native application, and native mobile applications.

I have been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for approximately 14 years.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is a stable solution.

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.

For the Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is not possible for them to provide us with a resolution because there is a bottleneck from the solution side, but they are proactive.

The initial setup of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is simple for me. However, I understand new people have to learn, and I would still rate it simple. The deployment took approximately 30 to 45 minutes. Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is straightforward but the Enterprise version is complicated.

There is an annual license required to use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional. There are not any additional costs other than the licensing fees to use it.

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

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

There are actually some cool features in LoadRunner where we can have multiple users at the same time. Some of the help features in the communities, what HP has are pretty good. We have quick turnaround time for the support as well, sometimes. It is helping our application to performance test and load test. I didn't use much of the tools, and have been using these tools since eight, nine years now, so I'm more into that. I see HP is constantly improving the features of the tool.

We have the manpower, the resources. One of the thing which I realized is let's say if you have another tool which is equal or there are more comparable abilities, but it's kind of hard to get resources for those tools who are skilled. I see a bunch of resources easily available in the market for LoadRunner and HP products and I feel like this could be possible because it's kind of industry leader in the testing tools or something.

There are a lot of people using LoadRunner I can say that. The issues what we get from doing performance testing, some of the issues are not specific to tool, but because we have such a huge community in HP tools we kind of get some solutions easily from the outside world as well in the communities I guess.

The demo that I've seen today, it sounds pretty cool but it still has some limitations I guess. They thought it is only limited to web and mobile right now, and it's currently not supported for all the products of what we have in performance center. We'll all have to wait and see how they come up with full version of the features.

I would like to see the features what they are saying in the demo for StormRunner, if they can have the features of Performance Center and LoadRunner combined, put it in StormRunner, that would be awesome because StormRunner looks pretty good the way they are explaining, it's like all one stop shop where you can just manage everything from one webpage but it's not complete, it doesn't look like it's complete. If we can get all those other features included in the new one, then that would be awesome.

I believe it's good. When it first started I didn't realize it was so good, but over the years I'm seeing that it's getting more and more stable. It looks like HP is putting some efforts to make it more stable.

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.

It's on and off at times, depends on what tech guy you are working with. Some of them I find very technical strong and they were able to help, but it has to go through some processes. You have a basic layer and if it's not resolvable there, it goes to the next level so it has a process, which may take some time.

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.

I am primarily using LoadRunner to perform tests on HTTP and HTTPS.

This solution provides a one-stop-shop for what we need.

I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful.

You can do live monitoring, which is very useful compared to Apache JMeter.

This is good for a large-scale organization because it supports a lot of protocols.

One of the problems with LoadRunner was always outside sharing. However, now that they are offering a cloud version, this may already work well. 

The infrastructure support can be improved because there are a lot of limitations with the hardware that you can use.

I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator.

I have been using LoadRunner for about ten years.

This solution is very stable. We use it very frequently.

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.

Technical support for LoadRunner is quite good. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

In addition to LoadRunner, I was also using Apache JMeter for about three years. JMeter does not support live monitoring unless you use a plugin. However, JMeter has better infrastructure support than LoadRunner.

My company did not switch from JMeter to LoadRunner. They already had already purchased LoadRunner licenses. There are a lot of inherent limitations with JMeter, including analytics capabilities.

The initial setup for the standalone version is very simple and very easy compared to a solution like Apache JMeter. If you have the licenses then you can get started very soon.

It takes perhaps 20 minutes to deploy, depending on the machine configuration. Only one person is required because it has an auto-install package.

For the standalone version of LoadRunner, you don't need help from consultants. However, for something like a performance center then you need a consultant to help.

The licensing fees are based on the number of users. There is also a free community edition, but it depends on what protocol you're using and how many users you want. Essentially, the licensing fees are based on the need.

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.