Its scalability is great. It is highly scalable. You can put as much load as you want as long as you have the license. They are supporting both licenses. You can pre-purchase a license or you can purchase over the cloud. They support scalability on the user side as well as the load side. In our case, we also have on-premises load generators. They support all types. It is easily scalable.

OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is scalable.

I didn't have any problems adding users in tests with a maximum of around 3000 users. Once in a while, we have issues with refreshing.

It is a scalable platform. I rate its scalability a nine out of ten.

I have scaled the tool up to 1000 users. It comes with its cost.

LoadRunner Cloud's scalability has been reliable for my needs, although I haven't tested it on a very large scale like e-commerce platforms might require. As a bank, I have found it to be cloud-based and easily scalable, with no issues in distributing load or managing large tests.

When it comes to efficient and cost-effective scalability, it can be expensive. It is efficient, but also expensive. So the balance would then be just okay.

It's used intensively by the three performance engineers, daily. We have plans to have other teams also use LoadRunner Cloud. So we hope it will increase.

We do our own maintenance on the on-premise part and Micro Focus does the maintenance on the cloud part.

We are just in the process of scaling now. Our intention is to expand but it will take time to do so. We are using it for five projects right now and we need to acquire more licenses.

We can scale the product as needed. It's very easy to do. 

It's also good for any size of the company, from small to enterprise. 

Right now, I'm the only person that uses the solution in our organization. However, we use it to execute the tests with 800 users.

I use it daily. It's used for a quarterly test. For every quarter we'll be executing the testing required.

The efficiency of the scalability is a 10 out of 10. I have used multiple tools and LoadRunner is the best one in terms of efficiency. When it comes to cost-effectiveness of the scalability, I would give it an eight out of 10. Even though it's cloud, and you can have thousands of users, we are paying in the tens of thousands. It's not so cost-effective for a university like ours. We still have to justify why we need to spend so much money every financial year.

We have around 100 users, they are functional experts who use this for load testing.

The people who have been responsible for setting the KPIs will decide if we will expand the solution. They are the end-users. It will depend on the dashboard and the results of the load testing.

We haven't really hit any scalability issues by using StormRunner, but I just now heard that they can support two million users, which is kind of astonishing. The max I have used is 40,000 users, but two million is good, too. It's big step up from 40,000.

At the same time, you don't have to get the infrastructure built and set it up. For example, let's say you had to test it for one million users. You don't have to procure all of the machines you need for the one test you're going to do. You can do it on demand, that's the best thing. Two million is still very much overboard, but it's good to know. It's good to know that there's no limitation nearby.

Around 30 to 40 people use the tool in our organization.

The solution is scalable. I rate its scalability between a seven and nine out of ten.

The solution is scalable.

I think it scales really well. I like that you can add users on the fly or remove users on the fly. That's a great feature.

There were no issues with the scalability, however, the time taken to initialize the test is directly dependent on the number of users to be simulated.

No issues encountered.

I think the scalability is fine with this kind of solution because I have no problem with how many machines will be available to run the test; it's a matter of the cloud provisioning. It will be useful to run the tests in multiple environments in parallel. That will be a good tool for us when we have to make tests with a shortage of time.

I trust it. I haven't tried it with thousands of virtual users. As true client, yes of course. We had arl 6000 true client users. That's 60 gigabyte memory. It's not a PC, so it's not large.

Scalability issues were seen during initial days of testing but it was resolved by StormRunner R&D team.

It is not really scalable.

It's been extremely scalable as far as the testing that we've done with our customers. They've all been really satisfied with the scalability of the HPE products.

We were only running a small set of numbers, but no issues.

It's scaled to our needs.

No issues encountered.

No, but haven’t really scaled it yet.

I only needed to simulate 40,000 users for my project but I understand that it will work for up to 2,000,000 users. That is huge and I can say that scalability is very good.

It's very flexible. We can have load testing for 100 users, maybe 1,000 or even more, so yes, no problem with that.

No issues with scalability.

It scales fine because our customers are usually larger.

We never encountered issues with scalability.