OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

We use this product to test our web application that is used for internet banking.

The most important feature for us is that it supports a lot of protocols because we support all of them, including HTTP, FTP, mainframe, and others. This means that it is very scalable.

I would like to see easier integration with our CICD pipeline.

The product is pretty heavy and should be more lightweight.

I would like to see a browser extension where we can start the development. This would be helpful because right now, this solution is good for UTM integration and performance testing, but if we want to scale then it is difficult.

I have only been using LoadRunner Professional for a short time because I just joined the company, and I used to work with open-source technology.

We have six or seven people using this product.

As we have just begun using it, we have note let had to contact support.

The initial setup is pretty easy. This product is Java-based and you just have to add the independent libraries and dependencies. It is more of a client-server based architecture

This is not a cheap product.

I have primarily used JMeter, which is open-source and free to use.

I have also used Silk Performer, although that was a long way back.

The suitability of one solution over another is very dependant on the use case. When it comes to performance testing, it is very specific to the use case. It depends on your goal and what you want to do.

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.

In many scenarios, you have to be able to run or put load on your application, and that's what that product does, and it does it pretty well.

In the old days, if you wanted to run load on your application, you would send out an email to 20 people, and you're all trying to do a load on an application. It allows you to scale up hundreds-thousands of users in order to simulate that.

I think it needs to have better reporting. After you do all the load, you really want good reporting.

We've had no issues with the stability.

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.

Not directly through HPE. We go through HPE's vendor partner, which is Checkpoint Technologies, and they provide excellent technical support.

We used JMeter which is open source, same problem though - reporting is open source. Zero support because it's open source. When we ran into a problem, no help from JMeter. That's why we moved to using LoadRunner.

We have our license pool with 100 concurrent users. I like the concurrent license model. I don't have any problem scaling.

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

The breadth of protocol support means that you can get LoadRunner (and its sister product Performance Center) to test almost any application with useful built-in functions. The programmable scripts allow for the creation of sophisticated reliable and robust frameworks and scripts. The API potentially allows you to extend the tool to support applications that it cannot support, but how to do this is not well documented or supported.

The analysis capability is simply best of breed as it allows you to take data from any source and correlate it with your results. In other tools, analysis is more problematic and therefore a bit of a black art.

We use LoadRunner and its sister product Performance Center as two of the key pieces in our corporate tool kit along with other tools in delivering performance engineering services. Some of our customers insist on using this, and for them, it has helped administer payroll, deliver luggage in airports, and enabled them to support tax returns.

At Infuse, we have integrated such tools very early into early performance validation at the unit test level. This enables our customers to find defects early on in development, and combined with performance modelling in design, enables them to fix performance issues early and cheaply.

HP as a company has been slow to move to support modern technologies e.g. Oracle ADF. HP took a long time to support the protocol. The support could be better.

I have, as a performance engineer, been using LoadRunner since 1999, in multiple different versions. As a business we have been using it since 2002, and it features in around 80% of our performance engineering assignments along with other tools.

The tool itself is very easy to set up and install the various components. 90% of the time there are no deployment issues. The biggest issue really, is setting up the connections from the load generators to the controller component. However, these are are normally network related issues that, with the correct input from the network/infrastructure team, can quickly be resolved.

No, the application is very robust. The only time issues are experienced is when it is running for extra-long period soak tests, e.g. for 24 hours. Then, only on odd occasions, does the system sometimes experience issues with results files, which become corrupt. Usually this is because of issues during the test with the AUT causing very large results files being generated.

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.

Average, to occasionally good, but no better.

HP LoadRunner technical support is adequate, with implementation issues and functional problems that may arise. However, it doesn’t include scripting support, but there is a wealth of information on numerous public forums regarding LoadRunner to assist most technical issues which helps.

As an independent vendor we use JMeter, The Grinder and Oracle Application Tool Suite’s load test module, but all of these tools don’t have the breadth of supporting protocols and so are not always suitable for our client’s applications and systems being tested. They are also sub-optimal from an analysis perspective, but do a good job.

The setup for LoadRunner is straightforward as the installations are via wizards, and this makes them quick and easy. Make sure though, that the instructions are followed as written, and be aware that virus detection software can adversely affect the installation. The most complex area is in ensuring connectivity between the load generators and the controller, which may involve firewall changes as load generator machines should be located where the users are situated or externally on the cloud. The complexity is often getting permissions from the IT support teams and explaining what you are doing rather than changing the firewall itself and setting it up. It requires good communication skills.

We implement it ourselves.

Considering the performance issues that we have found and prevented moving into production on client sites is enough to show that there is a positive ROI with the tool. This is despite the initial expense, as assets produced can be re-used on each implementation reducing the cost for subsequent releases.

The set up costs depend on the protocol type (there are standard and premium types), the number of virtual users being simulated, the terms, and the number of, load generator machines that are needed. Then there is an annual support maintenance fee that allows for free upgrade and access to the support functions.

We would evaluate all the tools on the market for a customer before making a recommendation. We do an evaluation based on the customers dynamics/culture, budget, and delivery methodology, and then offer our client a choice.

Other tools though don’t provide the breadth of support for different protocols and so this tool is limited to the applications it compatible with. It also has more basic reporting and analysis features. But then other tools are also generally cheaper.

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

We are it using the solution mainly for the REST-based API.

It is quite a good tool. It supports a medical protocol which we tried to explore in other products, but none of them had. It is very difficult to get data tool support in these solutions but LoadRunner does support them, it is a big advantage. Overall, It is pretty simple, easy to use.

My team members predominately used the product to do development but I don't think it needs anything in a way of improvements.

I have been using the solution for over two years.

We didn't see any challenge with this product at all.

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

We found the support to be good. Whenever there is an issue with anything, within 24-hours we get an answer. If we want someone from their team to look into an issue, they will log it, analyze it and get back to us.

The installation took around 20 to 30 minutes.

We did the installation and deployment of the product ourselves. It's simple and pretty easy. We were using the LRP, we did not need any technical guidance for anything. We simply installed the configuration, then a few clicks, and we were done.

There is a licensing cost that is expensive. There is also the Enterprise version of the software which allows other features that the Professional does not, such as, license sharing.

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.

LoadRunner gives us real data regarding our performance testing. It's the way that the tool itself works and the way that we can have information coming from the tools.

The availability and the fact that HPE people want to help is something that I appreciate because they are with us, they try to help, they try to understand what we need and they act accordingly.

For us it's really used by a specific group of people. It's the efficiency that it gave us to do performance testing and get results rapidly.

It needs to be easier to use. I know LoadRunner so I think it's a tool that's difficult to understand. We are working with specialists to help us, but it's difficult to find those resources. They need to simplify a bit the way the tool works.

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

It's good but we need to manage exactly what we need from them. Sometimes on the business side it's not clear enough. When it's not clear we don't have the results we need. The next time we need to make sure to correctly define our needs and involve them in that way.

We didn't use any other solution previously.

It's not straightforward because for us it was because it was an upgrade of the infrastructure as well. So at the same time we changed the server, we also changed the infrastructure. It was not because of the product itself, it was more linked to what we needed to do at that time.

What we like the most is that it integrates with UC. We use UC for our front-end user experience. It's a more realistic user experience. 

We use the script from the user experience and we use the action times from the UC.

If they were able to, I would say that the scalability could be improved. If the costs were not as expensive to upgrade, then we would scale it more.

The initial setup could be simplified.

I would like to see better licensing costs. 

I have been working with this solution for ten years.

It's a stable solution. In the ten years that we have been using it, I have only had an issue once.  We had an issue with the protocol where it didn't support the job. We contacted support.

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.

When I had contacted technical support they very helpful.

Previous versions were easy to install but we struggled with the LoadRunner Enterprise to get it to work. It was a bit challenging.

LoadRunner Professional is an expensive product.

I like using LoadRunner and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

In our organization, the solution is required for the testing of the performance of applications, response time, and the utilization of resources.

Initially, if you wanted to produce the load from different locations, you needed to have a physical machine there. But with time, the new features ensure that you can (if you want to) have one machine in the Pacific and one in North America. You can request and you can test those machines. You can connect and you can create loads from those locations. It's a very good feature. It's made things easier for us.

The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations. 

The controller is the best feature, in my opinion.

The solution is very costly. The cost is very high, especially considering a lot of other resources are available now and they are less expensive. For a small organization, it is very difficult to sustain the costs involved in having the solution or the related fees.

The technical support aspect of the solution could be improved.

Their current dashboard and their reporting is still following the earlier waterfall models. If they can add some things in the reporting, and update it so it is more modern, that would be great.

I've been using the solution for five years. My organization continues to use it.

This is a really stable tool. We haven't had issues with bugs or glitches. It hasn't crashed on us. We've been satisfied with the level of stability it provides.

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. 

The technical support is not as great as we expected them to be. The one or two times we have connected with them, they referred us to a model. They often say they will get back to us instead of helping us immediately. It's not very good.

The last issue we had was related to some specific application. The tool was not able to identify the objects on the screen. We had questions, as they used some technology tool provider, and said they were testing at that time, and had mixed the technology on that screen, on the GUI. Loadrunner was not able to recognize it. They said they would come back to us, but we have not seen any answer from them since then. That was around a year back. We've had many questions since then as well.

In the end, we had to solve it internally, but there is no solution from the tool company. Maybe in the next release it will be resolved.

I don't recall looking at other options. We simply decided to go with Loadrunner from the beginning.

The initial setup of the solution was very straightforward, as I recall. It wasn't too complex.

The cloud has allowed for deployments to happen fairly fast. You need one URL and within 15-20 minutes you can have it installed on your local machine.

Due to the fact that the solution has a pretty straightforward initial setup, we didn't need outside assistance. We didn't require the help of integrators or consultants. We handled everything in-house.

In terms of ROI, LoadRunner does everything. Web-based applications or free applications have a poor ROI in comparison. You just don't get the same quality.

I don't have any information about how much it costs to run the solution. I know it is expensive, but I don't handle the accounting, so I'm unsure how much our organization actually pays. I don't believe there are other costs beyond the standard licensing fee.

There are different licence tiers. We have the maximum, so so don't have to deal with any limitations at any time.

There's two types of users on the solution. One is the actual testers. In our organization, we have twenty people using this load. The others are virtual users. The licensing is dependent upon the virtual user and you are charged according to how many virtual users are using the application. Around twenty users are virtual in my organization.

At the time we started with Loadrunner, it was the leader in the market. Now, of course, we have options. However, back then we did not have any competitors to look at or compare to.

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.