OpenText LoadRunner was the first tool I was introduced to since I started with performance testing.

I've never used anything else.

View full review »

I have used solutions from different vendors. One of them is BlazeMeter, and I have also used NeoLoad in my previous organization. 

In my current organization, we are also using JMeter. With JMeter, we have to spend more time in scripting, test data setup, etc. With LoadRunner Enterprise, there is a 50% time reduction. It is reducing 50% of the man hours that we spend in scripting for JMeter. That is an advantage.

View full review »

From the SmartBear tools, we use ReadyAPI. We've been using it for five years, and I've actually been a training partner for IBM for the last three years, delivering training for them using ReadyAPI.

We use it for API testing and service virtualization. I like the interface. It's easy to use. 

Feature-wise, it is the same as other tools on the market. Not something spectacular about it. But usually, it covers all the needs you might have in IT and quality assurance in general.

We also use OpenText LoadRunner Cloud. For API performance testing, I prefer to use LoadRunner.

I've worked with LoadRunner since a long time. I know it much better, it's much more familiar. It's nothing wrong with ReadyAPI. But if I had to choose between the two, I would choose LoadRunner because I have experience with it. It does everything I need, so that's why I work with it.

View full review »

We use a mixture of products based on industry-leading products and also based on our clients' preferred tool. We are an SI, and we do a lot of work with clients. Client X might say that they are a JMeter shop, and this is what we should use because getting anything else accredited requires a separate process. The next client used LoadRunner or Selenium, so we tend to be testing-technology agnostic. However, now that it is a part of the OpenText family, if I have a say in the matter and if they are on an OpenText program, I can say to clients that it makes more sense to go for LoadRunner. I want to pick the product from the same family rather than picking something that is on the outside looking in and does not have that kind of synergy. 

View full review »

We used JMeter before OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise. We switched to OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise because JMeter doesn't help to test encryptions and decryptions. 

View full review »

We previously used IBM's Rational Robot, as well Silk Performer.

View full review »

We did not previously use a different solution.

View full review »

We used to utilize Apache JMeter, and it is a good solution, but OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise offers better features that are suitable for our business. Its flexibility in terms of building a CI/CD pipeline across the platforms is a benefit.

View full review »

I have previously used JMeter.

View full review »

We've used JMeter, WebLOAD, and NeoLoad.

While Micro Focus' competition does offer a lot of tools, this solution does a better job of laying out guidelines.  There are examples and use cases, and they respond to questions. Those are the reasons people are still using them.

View full review »

When I joined the team, they were already using it, so I do not know what they were using before.

View full review »

Previously, we used LoadRunner Professional.

View full review »

We previously used WebLOAD. In WebLOAD, to set it up, if your script needs to use a data file, it's a wizard. It takes six or seven steps to set it up. In LoadRunner, it's a lot easier. It doesn't take that long. It's a very straightforward process.  

The other thing is, RadView uses JavaScript language for the script, whereas LoadRunner uses C. LoadRunner recently has given the option for testers to use JavaScript as well. You can add more users on a LoadRunner test. Their load gens are more scalable. They allow more users with load gen than with RadView.

Right now, we tend to prefer LoadRunner.

View full review »

Before Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, we used Apache JMeter which was the only other option because it's an open-source tool. It was deployed on-premises and not on the cloud.

We also used the normal version of the Performance Center before Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise which was two years prior and we had to install the Performance Center on-premises and set up load generators and load controllers. The Enterprise version we've been using for the past three years.

The main differences between Apache JMeter, the Performance Center, and Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise are the usability and insights given by the last two solutions. Both the Performance Center and Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise give more insights, and they also offer more automation versus Apache JMeter.

With Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise and the Performance Center, users can leverage a quick exhibition after setting up the scenario, doing quick checks, and creating reports, but in Apache JMeter, users have to manually set up, observe, and do the reports.

There are more features in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise as well as it's cloud-based versus Apache JMeter which is only a plug-in, so we have to do everything manually in Apache JMeter.

View full review »

We have been using LoadRunner Professional for a long time. We are looking into switching to LRE because it's centralized and has so many good features.

View full review »

Since the early days, we were with HP Performance Center, and then with Micro Focus LoadRunner. We have stuck with the same supplier and product.

View full review »

We deployed three different solutions. One of them was free from VMware and the other one was Login PSI. We didn't really switch, it's just different feature sets we're looking for or methodology we want to use; whether or not the client wants to spend a hundred grand upfront.

View full review »

I have not used other similar tools.

View full review »

We tried NeoLoad previously. We found that NeoLoad is a good competitor to Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise.

View full review »

The collaboration between us and HPE, especially over the past ten years, has been very good. This is the most important thing when looking at a vendor. For that reason, I try to bring in more HPE products, if needed.

View full review »

We are currently using 12.53 and we are trying to upgrade it to 12.63 but it looks like there's a problem with the upgrade. We would like to switch to take better advantage of some features that are currently difficult to work with. We used LoadRunner concurrently for a while, and while it was a good product there were things about Performance Center that we prefer.

View full review »

Adaptability is what I look for in a vendor. It tends to pull the others in. A good contact, ready to listen, to really know how to deliver what you want. Someone who can listen to what your problem is or what your challenge is that you need the tool to resolve. And if you're willing to adapt to that, then the tool might not be 100%, but it might make it's way there. If you're fixed in your ways, and say, "this is what our tool does, this is all that it's going to do," then to be honest, why continue?

View full review »

As a person who has been in the performance engineering field for several years, I have used several similar products. However, Performance Center and LoadRunner offer unbeatable support across different protocols, including SAP and AJAX true client.

Also, its ease of use in designing and reusable custom automated performance frameworks is unbeatable. Its support in designing frameworks and scripts for load testing message queues, web, and web-service protocols are quite remarkable.

It offers different types of users for people who come from different programming backgrounds i.e. if you are predominantly a C programmer, you can write a lot of custom API’s using C, and similarly, if you come from Java programming you can use your Java skills in custom API implementation.

View full review »

Ours is more of a historical basis. We were on version 9, we moved to version 11, and we are right now at version 12. It's more for historical reasons rather that an impulse buy.

View full review »

I help customers with this process all the time. I'm usually advising them on what, why, when, what the feature benefits are.

Unfortunately, as is human nature, customers decide that they need Performance Center because they've had a disaster. Hopefully not a horrible disaster, but they've had some kind of case where they released a product and it didn't scale. They didn't plan for their own success. A classic example is HealthCare.gov. Politics aside, when you've got the entire American population ready to enroll for healthcare and it tanks, it's a very bad experience for everyone. And that's not an uncommon occurrence across the board.

So then they realize, "Oh, well, we better do performance testing," and then they realize they didn't plan for that in the project lifecycle, so now they need to come and talk to Micro Focus about standing that up, or to talk to a partner at Micro Focus about how to do that for them.

There was a reason, for the longest time, that it had one of the largest market shares of any type of solution in the world, and now that Micro Focus has Silk and the LoadRunner/Performance Center product, they've got that market cornered.

View full review »

It was even before I joined. We were using LoadRunner. LoadRunner is a leading load testing tool in the market. Whenever a customer or anyone looks for a tool, the first thing which comes to mind is HP. We have seen StormRunner and we are here at HPE Discover 2016 to check out tools. We will see how they scale, and probably will make a decision soon.

View full review »

Originally we were using LoadRunner, and then we had to upgrade to Performance Center because with LoadRunner we didn't maintain currency with the license. That's another group that manages that. They just kind of were using it as it is. Then when we upgraded to version 11, we had compatibility issues and we had to go to Performance Center. I think they just didn't get used to it. I don't know exactly what they are or are not using in that stack, but part of it is we were forced to upgrade.

View full review »

We switched due to common licences.

View full review »

I wasn't directly involved in the decision to invest in Performance Center because we'd been using it since it was LoadRunner, and I've been using it for pretty close to 20 years now. So that was before my time.

View full review »

I have used Borland SilkTest, JMeter and LoadUI. JMeter and LoadUI have limitations in terms of the protocols. SilkTest is not as user friendly as Performance Center.

View full review »

Other than HP LoadRunner, I have not. They were the first tools I learned, and have continued to use them because they constantly meet or exceed my expectations.

View full review »

I also use BlazeMeter.

With LoadRunner, I use it with a paid tool, and since I am following the protocol, I need it to be easy to use. Whereas with BlazeMeter, we use it with JMeter. We need to use it sometimes if we want support. We need to configure some properties or some customers' ratings before we can use it.

View full review »

We were previously using LoadRunner and we moved to Performance Center. Under the covers, they are very much the same, but Performance Center just has a lot more flexibility from a licensing perspective and from a setup and management perspective. It was kind of a natural evolution.

View full review »

I have had the opportunity to use two other products briefly. Unfortunately, I did not have enough experience to speak to this with any authority.

View full review »

This is the only tool that I have used for performance testing. It is the tool that I use most of the time in my role.

View full review »

We previously used HP LoadRunner. Choosing Performance Center was an obvious upgrade for us. We also use other HP products such as UFT and Quality Center, so maintaining the cohesive environment made sense.

View full review »

We were previously using HP’s LoadRunner product. We switched because we were centralizing the function and needed a more robust product. View full review »

I started with HP products.

View full review »

I have not used any alternative to this product.

View full review »

I did not rate other solutions.

View full review »

only HP loadrunner

View full review »

No previous solution was used.

View full review »

We previously used a different enterprise level product.

View full review »

We chose this solution because it's very flexible, scalable, and allows customization in a wide range of areas.

View full review »

I didn't have the chance to use any other product.

View full review »

No previous solution was used.

View full review »

For a long time, we have been using HPE tools only.

View full review »

No, I have been using it for the past six years.

View full review »