OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

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.

It is one of the best performance testing tools available. It supports many protocols and technologies. It can be integrated with many systems.

These features have helped a lot in improving the performance and scalability of application. Moreover, they have improved our brand value.

Takes lots of time in scripting which can be improved; The scripts are generally not reusable with change-in build; Does not support MAC OS.

I have been using this solution for three years.

No.

We encountered issues with stability -- the system hangs many times.

Yes licensing cost is too much for Load Runner to scale it to more virtual users.

Customer Service: I'd rate the customer service 3.5 out of 5.Technical Support: The technical support was a 3 out of 5.

No.

It's good to use LoadRunner if you have lots of money and time. It’s really good but expensive and time consuming.

The feature we've found most valuable for us is the number of protocols available. We test many different commercially available tools or Java applications that prep to Zero OpenJDK, SAP, etc. But we've found that LoadRunner is the only solution that makes all protocols available in one tool. That's the number one benefit for us apart from its monitoring and analytics.

We're a testing department and LoadRunner is a business enabler. Without it, we wouldn't be able to make any money.

The look and feel of StormRunner is very modern and simple to use. If could be a huge improvement if LoadRunner could be the same.

We've been using it since 2002.

The deployment of LoadRunner is issue-free.

Stability depends on what happens during a test. Generally, LoadRunner is quite stable, but sometimes when a test is running, the system will abort it prior to completion even though the results are still accessible.

It also depends on what you want to do with LoadRunner. If you have your own application and you want to load test it, then LoadRunner works fine. But if, like us, you work with customers' applications, you may need more functionalities which LoadRunner may not have.

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.

Technical support is challenging. We have premier support for ALM and Performance Center, and we usually get inexperienced engineers when we contact tech support. They always ask for log files. We've been using HP tools for over 10 years and we can fix most problems ourselves. But, if we can't, we have to contact R&D, but that's too long a wait for us to get resolution of our issues.

We have several use cases for this solution. One of them is an automobile website for a huge dealership and we are doing load testing for them. We have projects in the hospitality industry, like hotel bookings. Our projects involve both API testing as well as browser-based load testing.

The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports.

The auto-correlation is much better than the different protocols that it supports.

LoadRunner is easy to use.

The debugging capability is difficult to use and should be improved. This is one area where some of the other products we use are better.

I have been using LoadRunner for five years.

We use LoadRunner on a daily basis and it is good.

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 been in touch with technical support but not very often. They were helpful when we did contact them.

We have used multiple testing tools like Visual Studio and NeoLoad. We have all of these as options. LoadRunner is easier to use and has support for better protocols.

Five to six engineers are required to maintain this solution.

Our in-house team deployed this solution.

NeoLoad was one of the options that we considered, but we ultimately went with LoadRunner.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

On-premises

Our primary use case of this solution is for performance testing and load testing.

The solution improves our organization because we can use it for recording scripts, enhancing the scripts and for running test revisions. We can therefore preform test revisions and do analysis.

What I really like about this solution, is the user-friendly interface and the loading and repair properties.

Currently the solution doesn't have recording options or sometimes we're not be able to see the recording options. So that needs to improve. I also think the solution should have more screen compatibility, even if you're using a different operating system like Windows 10, Windows 8 or Windows 8.1. Sometimes we find that there is a difference between the desktop screen and the laptop screen. So, it should be compatible for both screens.

I have been using LoadRunner for around two years on premise.

The solution is stable and the only compatibility issues lie within the screens. I think there should be an improvement to the compatibility to both laptop and desktop screens. Sometimes we are not be able to click on some of the buttons due to the screen mismatching and compatibility issues. 

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.

We get really good support from the support team.

The initial setup and installation of the software were very easy and straightforward. 

LoadRunner has a variety of options and different protocols that will support all types of applications categories like web application, monitor and any internal applications or desktop applications. The customization protocol also is user-friendly and if I have to rate the solution, I will give it a nine out of ten. In the next version I would like to see specific protocols when I want to do performance settings for any desktop clients. 

The most valuable feature of LoadRunner is its ability to simulate multiple uses at the same time. That's the most important thing and the primary reason I use it.

I don't believe that there are any other good tools for performance testing. It's either use LoadRunner for performance testing or don't do performance testing at all.

We have a lot of issues right now with the Citrix client, so this should be improved.

Deployment has been fine.

We've had no issues with stability.

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

Quite good, though sometimes it depends on who you’re dealing with. Sometimes you have bad luck and get a guy who doesn't know much about it, is new, or is in training, but most of the time technical support is fine.

It was rather easy and you can do it yourself.

For functional testing, we look for alternatives sometimes, especially for the execution part.

I don't think there's a better product for all systems.

Truclient Ajax

Scripting for web is faster and easier

1 year

No

No

Yes, Remote Load Generators has issues in identifying objects on dynamic web pages

• Auto Correlation: It saves time while designing the performance testing scripts.

• Extended Reporting: It saves time in report designing and also, provides the option to select the quantum of information to represent.

I have performed performance testing for a number of clients using HPE LoadRunner. It has helped them in finding the performance bottlenecks, capacity issues before deployment.

The extended features are available but the high pricing is an issue.

I am using HPE LoadRunner for six years.

I have found some stability issues for one of the website. After a number of concurrent users, the web server was unable to handle the load.

I have experienced scalability issues.

HPE provides excellent technical support. The process is lengthy and time- consuming, but the quality is excellent.

I have used Apache JMeter too, but it supports limited protocols. HPE LoadRunner's protocol support is wide.

The initial setup is easy; HPE Documentation is one of the biggest benefits.

The price is a bit high but if you procure the HPE LoadRunner you will get many benefits such as excellent technical support, a wide range of supported protocols, a great document library and easy help from the technical communities for your problems.

We evaluated Apache JMeter.

I will suggest to first understand what is your requirement and then list down the tools available, which can help in delivery. We need to make an appropriate choice by keeping the budget in mind. If pricing is not an issue then choose LoadRunner, else evaluate other options.