OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

• The custom scripting that it allows me to carry out sections and find my own variables in LoadRunner.
• I can use True Client, which is also an HP product, but LoadRunner gives me more flexibility in writing my own code.

We use LoadRunner to script our applications and then run those as synthetic monitoring from BPM. So the BPM are not only proactive if any of our solutions or if any of our applications are down, but also gives us features like the screen capture editor, such as what are we seeing on the webpage while we are seeing on the application. So that kind of synthetic monitoring. We have three data centers, and we have BPM all through the data centers, and isolating and troubleshooting through a data center is helpful with BPM, and LoadRunner is indirectly helping with that.

The stability is good.

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

I don't remember the last time we reached out to tech support.

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.

We use this solution for performance testing, and to identify bottlenecks.

This solution has helped us to eliminate software performance risk before going live.

The most valuable feature of this solution is VuGen, the Virtual User Generator. The scripting can be done easily.

The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period.

The price of this solution should be cheaper.

It's got a lot of protocols that support all our business requirements, such as Java, HTTP, and Citrix. It gives us one tool that supports all this technology.

We don't have to work on another platform as we only have to learn one tool. There's a lot of information, help, and best practices available. It's a market-leading tool so there are lots of people with knowledgeable experience. Our employees are productive from day one.

Because we're a telecommunications company with millions of subscribers, we run very high volume tests for 24-48 hours. LoadRunner has been very, very stable during these tests and has gotten us results. It gives us expert diagnoses of our tests with very detailed, in-depth analyses.

We'd like for it to incorporate a tool for ordering module that would work with our proprietary in-house ordering module scripting protocol.

We have no issues with deployment.

It's very stable.

It scales very, very well.

They're very good. We have issues, we contact them, and they help us solve the issues.

Setup was very straightforward. We installed, applied the licenses, and started using it.

There is Neotys NeoLoad and SOASTA CloudTest, but LoadRunner is the best.

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

• It allows you to create your own customized code.
• It provides an analysis report after running a test scenario.
• It supports maximum protocols.
• It's user-friendly.

It generates reports in a format that's very easy to understand for both our own internal use and other audiences. It supports Citrix and SAP protocols, which is very helpful for our clients to understand bottlenecks if there are any on their network.

It should support GWT and mobile testing, including network virtualization.

I've used it for eight years.

We didn't encounter any issues during deployment.

We haven't encountered any stability issues.

We haven't encountered any issues while scaling.

I'd say that customer service is not good.

Technical support is also not good.

I used NeoLoad, but it does not support Citrix, so we chose LoadRunner.

Initial setup was not that difficult.

We did the implementation through an in-house team.

My advice is for you to have a load generator machine that has a good configuration for handling large volumes of users.

It is very costly, but LoadRunner works perfectly. It fits our needs in the way we use it, but you should make sure your use justifies the cost.

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.

Our primary use case for LoadRunner is a lot of business transactions, physical scenarios, and incoming applications. We use LoadRunner for building and it is very easy to use because of its support for all of the protocols. 

LoadRunner is a very systematic tool for anyone to use. Even someone who is actually a first time user of LoadRunner can actually get a lot of benefit out of the tool.

LoadRunner is an expensive tool, so mostly it is large-sized companies that would prefer LoadRunner over other legacy applications. Being with LoadRunner for so long has given a lot of opportunities for us to experiment with large workloads and even the various different types of extensions. That has actually really benefited the organization.

One of the most valuable features of LoadRunner is the correlation feature which is automated now. All year when I started this with a lot of manual processes, it would actually capture dynamic values, but now these new versions have made it very easy for any newcomer to form whatever you want.

Get in other agitation settings which are very detailed and any tester can go through everything they intend to do, customize their execution patterns. The results are very detailed, presenting a very comprehensive summary that anyone can read and understand.

If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help. My main recommendations for improvement for LoadRunner are:

• It would be good if LoadRunner can categorize the different transactions based on the time taken to do the test, against the transactions first.
• The reports should be a little more comprehensive, more detailed.
• There should be a way to use the default monitoring tool integrated with LoadRunner.

For example, if I have to look for monitoring I have to always integrate an extending tool to LoadRunner and then monitor my task. If LoadRunner is not driving and they can afford to have their own monitoring enabled, that would help.

The LoadRunner report also needs more information other than the straightforward notes, like response time.

To be frank, the earlier version (graded I-5 and graded I-6) was very bad for me. I had a really bad experience on that version. 

One of the problems we had was that one of the scripts that we used to create worked and then there were some bugs that were coming out runtime support. 

The recent version runs well, and actually, LoadRunner has removed those bugs. It's been a good experience.

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.

Very rarely have I actually wondered how to use tech support because most of the bugs, most of the issues have been resolved by ourselves, through online browsing and materials. I've not really chatted with the LoadRunner tech support.

The setup of LoadRunner is very straightforward. It comes with one retro file which installs all the applications which handle the individual applications also. It's a very easy setup, just that the sizing of the tools is much less. Other than that, the setup is pretty easy.

The three factors we look for in a vendor are: 

1. The pricing 
2. The features
3. The customer support

Definitely, the features are most important to complement the pricing.

Since it's 11 years that the company has been using LoadRunner, there was no other tool on the market that would actually come to the standards of LoadRunner and that is why we had chosen such a tool. 

Look at the options on other software which are not as pricey as LoadRunner. It's true that LoadRunner has all the features and a lot of ways to help, but then not all companies require such extensive tools. That is where I would probably suggest asking the pricing and the features integrated.

At that time it was Silk Performer vs. LoadRunner, and Silk Performer was not optimal enough in terms of its features. We were having a lot of issues trying to create our scripts using Silk Performer and latched upon LoadRunner. We found out that LoadRunner has got a lot more features than Silk Performer and was able to cover the tasks.

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.

Enables us to test most of the products and projects that we have across all the different technologies, without having to look at other tools.

It allows us to get better reliability, quicker, for the products and solutions. That means fewer critical performance issues when the product goes to market. 

Probably integrations. We still have some issues with integration with things like SiteScope which, obviously, being another HPE product should be very straightforward, but there are always issues around that.

We would like to see more integrations and easier integrations. We have other products that we have integrations with, other third-party products, which seem to be straightforward, ALM and JIRA for example. But for integration between HPE products, we would like to see that go a bit more smoothly.

About 12 years.

it's stable. It's been around for a long time. There are no real issues, no defects or anything.

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've used technical support quite a lot but not so much lately because it's something we're very familiar with, so we tend to manage it. But when we've used it we've been happy with it.

It was a very long time ago. It was complicated only because of the age of the technology then and the infrastructure we had.

Updating, it's something you just have to plan for, but otherwise it was fairly straightforward.

There are various things we haven't been able to test so we're continuously looking at other vendors to complement it. NeoLoad being one, recently. That's it really.

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.