Senior Performace Engineer at Yolandi,miller@multichoice.co.za
Real User
2024-02-28T16:34:36Z
Feb 28, 2024
In South Africa, for a load license with about 5,000 concurrent users, the annual license, not including patches, is around 1.5 million to 2 million, depending on the currency exchange. That's a lot of money, especially for startups. Sometimes, you might have the license renewed for support, but if the application is stable, you might not need the annual fee. It can feel like throwing money away.
There are a lot of negotiations going on right now about the product's pricing. There is a bit of unhappiness on that aspect and how it's currently being presented versus how it was presented previously.
Director of Performance Testing at a healthcare company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 20
2023-10-20T19:54:00Z
Oct 20, 2023
The tool is very expensive. It's probably one of its biggest weak points. As a capability manager for performance, it's a battle every year to substantiate the cost. There's an opportunity for OpenText to help us educate people who are not in the field.
Learn what your peers think about OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2024.
We used the Professional version and then moved to the enterprise version. We have subscribed to 1000 user licenses. The tool will be super expensive if we take up 5,000 user licenses. We have to limit ourselves on testing.
Senior delivery manager at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5
2023-08-29T03:21:00Z
Aug 29, 2023
The suitability of the solution depends on the specific needs and requirements of an organization or project. It also depends on which model will be integrated and used, as does the price structure and the licensing. We are content with the pricing and find it to be reasonable in terms of value for money. The only challenge is when it comes to large enterprise companies that are working with multiple suppliers. The integration of licenses is very difficult or in some cases, impossible.
I'm not sure if other similar solutions are cheaper, but Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is expensive, and could easily be 20 percent cheaper. I give the cost a one out of ten.
I don't know this as a fact. However, I've heard that LoadRunner is pricey. I have heard from different customers that although LoadRunner's a great product, sometimes they are looking for alternatives, since the pricing model for LoadRunner's very expensive. Sometimes customers will look at other options for testing tools due to the cost.
Senior IT Process Analyst at a energy/utilities company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2021-06-15T17:08:00Z
Jun 15, 2021
The contract that we had with Micro Focus was a bit complex, but now it's much simpler. As a customer, I have clarity about it. That is something that helps us to serve the business better.
Performance Test Lead at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2021-05-24T17:46:00Z
May 24, 2021
I have not been directly involved in price negotiations but my understanding is that while the cost is a little bit high, it provides good value for the money.
Managed Services Architect at a computer software company with 201-500 employees
MSP
2020-10-08T07:25:00Z
Oct 8, 2020
The price is okay. You're able to buy it, as opposed to paying for a full year. You can just on-demand purchase it for your users for a day or two, which is nice in an MSP business like mine. If I need to use it for separate clients, I don't have to have a huge layout of capital upfront.
Managed Services Architect at a computer software company with 201-500 employees
MSP
2020-02-16T08:27:36Z
Feb 16, 2020
We have license files. The license is paid by what they call man-days, which is calculated based on the number of users that are needed and by the number of days they are going to use it for. In the MSP business, it makes it incredibly easy to use. We license it as we need it. If we use it for one client, and only need it once a year, the licensing cost for 500 users would be approximately US $2.50 per day, per user, so approximately US $1250.00 per day.
The solution needs to reduce licensing costs. Its main competition, for example, is free to use, so I'm sure it's rather difficult to compete with it on a cost level.
Senior Consultant at a computer software company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
2019-11-13T05:28:00Z
Nov 13, 2019
I'm not quite sure about the exact pricing because I do not handle that part of the business, but I think the Performance Center is quite expensive. It is more expensive than LoadRunner, although I am not sure how many controllers you can run for the same price. They said Performance Center was costing us around 40 million Krones and that is about 4 million dollars. But I think that was with ALM (Application Lifecycle Management) as well and not only for Performance Center.
Your globally distributed performance testing teams have the responsibility of driving quality acrossyour enterprise while testing a broad range of application types, managing costs and deploying applications that meet the performance requirements of your business. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise delivers a collaborative testing platform that reduces complexity, centralizes resources and leverages shared assets and licenses to increase consistency across your enterprise.
In South Africa, for a load license with about 5,000 concurrent users, the annual license, not including patches, is around 1.5 million to 2 million, depending on the currency exchange. That's a lot of money, especially for startups. Sometimes, you might have the license renewed for support, but if the application is stable, you might not need the annual fee. It can feel like throwing money away.
I rate the product's pricing a three out of ten.
There are a lot of negotiations going on right now about the product's pricing. There is a bit of unhappiness on that aspect and how it's currently being presented versus how it was presented previously.
I do not deal with pricing and licensing. My job is to make the engineering work.
The tool is very expensive. It's probably one of its biggest weak points. As a capability manager for performance, it's a battle every year to substantiate the cost. There's an opportunity for OpenText to help us educate people who are not in the field.
We got an 80 percent discount for the product. It was cost-effective, but licenses tend to get expensive.
We used the Professional version and then moved to the enterprise version. We have subscribed to 1000 user licenses. The tool will be super expensive if we take up 5,000 user licenses. We have to limit ourselves on testing.
OpenText/Microfocus productions are costly. They need to focus on minimizing the cost.
The suitability of the solution depends on the specific needs and requirements of an organization or project. It also depends on which model will be integrated and used, as does the price structure and the licensing. We are content with the pricing and find it to be reasonable in terms of value for money. The only challenge is when it comes to large enterprise companies that are working with multiple suppliers. The integration of licenses is very difficult or in some cases, impossible.
The solution should decrease its price.
I'm not sure if other similar solutions are cheaper, but Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is expensive, and could easily be 20 percent cheaper. I give the cost a one out of ten.
The solution is pretty expensive. I can't speak to the exact cost. I'd rate it three out of five in terms of affordability.
I don't know this as a fact. However, I've heard that LoadRunner is pricey. I have heard from different customers that although LoadRunner's a great product, sometimes they are looking for alternatives, since the pricing model for LoadRunner's very expensive. Sometimes customers will look at other options for testing tools due to the cost.
We are an enterprise company so we have a license with Micro Focus. I believe that if you have up to 50 users, there is an open-source option.
LoadRunner Enterprise's price is high, but it gives more value for money than some cheaper alternatives.
As I'm an end-user of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise and not involved in its licensing, I don't have information on how much it costs.
We purchased the license via SAP.
The price is a bit too high.
The price of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise could improve, it is expensive.
The contract that we had with Micro Focus was a bit complex, but now it's much simpler. As a customer, I have clarity about it. That is something that helps us to serve the business better.
I have not been directly involved in price negotiations but my understanding is that while the cost is a little bit high, it provides good value for the money.
The price is okay. You're able to buy it, as opposed to paying for a full year. You can just on-demand purchase it for your users for a day or two, which is nice in an MSP business like mine. If I need to use it for separate clients, I don't have to have a huge layout of capital upfront.
We have license files. The license is paid by what they call man-days, which is calculated based on the number of users that are needed and by the number of days they are going to use it for. In the MSP business, it makes it incredibly easy to use. We license it as we need it. If we use it for one client, and only need it once a year, the licensing cost for 500 users would be approximately US $2.50 per day, per user, so approximately US $1250.00 per day.
The solution needs to reduce licensing costs. Its main competition, for example, is free to use, so I'm sure it's rather difficult to compete with it on a cost level.
I'm not quite sure about the exact pricing because I do not handle that part of the business, but I think the Performance Center is quite expensive. It is more expensive than LoadRunner, although I am not sure how many controllers you can run for the same price. They said Performance Center was costing us around 40 million Krones and that is about 4 million dollars. But I think that was with ALM (Application Lifecycle Management) as well and not only for Performance Center.