If you were talking to someone whose organization is considering Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, what would you say?
How would you rate it and why? Any other tips or advice?
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 Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional an eight out of ten.
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.
I would suggest that if you have a site that needs to be used by a lot of people or if it's for enterprise applications where consumption is high, then it's a good tool. Otherwise, if there are fewer users or not a lot of load, then I would say that other tools might be handy. If you require performance-oriented applications, then it's a good tool. I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.
I like using LoadRunner and I recommend it. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
Advice that I would give people considering LoadRunner is that I would recommend exploring other tools first or at least in comparison. There are lots of really good open-source or even just cheaper alternatives. Depending on your use case, the other options might be much better. LoadRunner has broad protocol coverage. Sometimes you have got no choice but to go with a solution because of what it can do. But I think the days of LoadRunner being the only solution out there for this kind of testing have gone. There are some very good competitors now and where the competitor can do the job, you will save money. On the scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional as about a six. I have not taken a good look at the latest version, but my current experience with the version of the product we use has not been great.
We're partners with Micro Focus. 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.
I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
This is a very mature tool that is always improving and has very good support as well. More or less, they're always trying to revolve their limitations. In order to use LoadRunner, you need specific skills. In order to use tools of this type then you need performance engineering skills. My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is first to be clear about your use case and what you are trying to do. Develop and follow up on your own performance-testing strategy before implementing LoadRunner. That said, I highly recommend this product. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
We started using the solution when it was version 8.2 and now we are on version 10.6. We use the on-premises deployment model. I would recommend the solution to others. I'd rate it eight out of ten.
We use the on-premises deployment model. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
My advice to others would be to look into the application differently. In the next version, I would like to see an easier way to create and use TruClient for development and to move it to another version. They already have this function, but it is not very user-friendly. You cannot do a correlation of things now, because it is on a higher level now. So you have to do a lot of work. My rating for this solution is nine out of ten. I've used it a lot, so I guess it's possible to make things better, but it's been around for a while, so I think it's very good.
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.
When you compare other products to LoadRunner, LoadRunner has been in the market for a long time. You could use it to integrate with everything. Also, it can generate an input that we can use in any version, it can improve our performance, and we can put input in and we get a command from LoadRunner for that.
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.
IT Central Station users who are researching performance testing tools often look for comparisons between Eggplant Performance and Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional.
Do you have experience with these tools? If yes, please share some insight about which you prefer and why.