OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) Reviews

My experience with OpenText LoadRunner Professional over the years began with Mercury, then HP, Micro Focus, and now OpenText.

Currently, we are using the cloud version of OpenText LoadRunner Professional.

The most valuable feature of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is the analysis part that is really good, along with the support for multiple protocols.

The scalability feature of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is good, enhancing my testing capabilities.

The dashboard and technical support of OpenText LoadRunner Professional are good currently; if anything is required, I will let you know.

I would like to improve OpenText LoadRunner Professional based on what we discussed in our last discussion, as those points remain similar and applicable.

For future updates, I would like to see the same features that people generally prefer.

I find that AI functionality in OpenText LoadRunner Professional should be improved and more accessible; if we get a chance to work with that, then we can check how much it helps.

I have been using the product for 15 years.

I did not face any challenges or difficulties during the deployment process; it was a very easy and smooth installation.

I did not take part in the deployment process for OpenText LoadRunner Professional, but I was involved in earlier years.

I would rate the stability of OpenText LoadRunner Professional as eight and a half.

I find OpenText LoadRunner Professional's scalability to be around eight and a half as well.

I rate the support of OpenText as good.

If I need to rate support from one to ten, I would say it is a nine.

Positive

I did work with similar tools from different vendors before using OpenText LoadRunner Professional.

We worked with Micro Focus LoadRunner as one of the similar tools before.

The installation of OpenText LoadRunner Professional requires about 15 to 20 minutes if we are installing only VuGen, but if we are considering the whole product, including Load Generators, agents, and the complete suite, it takes one and a half hours.

A couple of people can handle the deployment of OpenText LoadRunner Professional.

We did not switch from Micro Focus to OpenText; it was the company who made that decision.

I cannot describe particular test cases currently, but I find OpenText LoadRunner Professional quite useful.

We have not used any AI features in OpenText LoadRunner Professional as of now, so I cannot comment on it.

We did not use AI in any of our applications for OpenText LoadRunner Professional.

I would definitely recommend OpenText LoadRunner Professional to other users.

In general, I would rate OpenText LoadRunner Professional as a nine.

We do not have a partnership with OpenText.

We are just users of their features, so we are not doing maintenance for OpenText LoadRunner Professional.

I work only with the performance testing tools and not with OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) for mobile and web applications.

With performance testing, I am the user of OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional). I have procured it and am in charge of conducting performance testing across my organization. I have a team of architects and performance test engineers who are working for me.

The main use case is performance testing, and that's the main reason I'm using this product.

I have been working with this solution for almost five years.

We look at the scalability because we are using the SaaS model now. The license can be consumed on a need-basis and can be served. The scripting language is quite comfortable for us since we are working with C and C++.

I see it is stable, though there are some glitches or latency sometimes. If we want to drill down further on what's happening, I need to check with my engineer. Overall, the installation was quite easy since OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is SaaS-based.

I have mentioned many advantages about this product, but to discuss disadvantages or areas that could be improved, I would need to consult with my engineers who are working on it. So far I have not heard of any significant issues.

I can gather specific improvement suggestions from my architect and provide that information later.

I have been working with this solution for almost five years.

I see it is stable, though there are some glitches or latency sometimes. If we want to drill down further on what's happening, I need to check with my engineer. So far, I have not had any significant issues.

We look at the scalability because we are using the SaaS model now. The license can be consumed on a need-basis and can be served.

The technical support is really excellent. That's something which I completely agree with.

Positive

The installation was quite easy since OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is SaaS based.

The pricing is always at a higher rate when compared to competitive tools such as NeoLoad.

When we compare OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) with Tricentis and other vendors, we see differences not only in pricing but also from a technical perspective. We don't use similar tools from different vendors. From OpenText, we have taken only LoadRunner Professional, which is mainly used to conduct load testing. Similarly, from Tricentis, we have only taken Tosca, which is for our functional testing tools across our applications. That's how we choose our tools.

I can provide additional advice after consulting with my team.

I am open to being contacted via email for any clarifications about my review.

I rate OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) an 8 out of 10.

We primarily use it for scripting and creating workload models. These are the two things we use it for. We use it in finance, specifically not in banking.

Recently, we had a test run for a finance application. We designed our scenario using LoadRunner Professional, where we tested around 500 users. The incremental load was easy to design, thanks to the scenario templates and workload modeling provided by LoadRunner.

The scripting capabilities of LoadRunner Professional are good. We can record most protocols with LoadRunner scripting, which is a good point. We do not have to rely on other tools or convert them to LRC scripts. It also features a good option for converting HAR files to load scripts, which helps a lot when traffic requests are missing in our recording. It's pretty good.

Until now, we have only integrated it with the internal product itself. We haven't tried integrating with external products much.

First, its compatibility with C and JavaScript, which enhances its integration with other tools. Additionally, when designing a workload model offers a good range of possibilities for creating goal-oriented scenarios, which helps us understand and meet SLAs.

It's called a goal-oriented scenario within the workload model. In the tool, it is referred to as goal-oriented scenarios.

Moreover, LoadRunner adapts to the trends. LoadRunner Cloud has great agent integrations with Git repositories, which makes it very easy. If we have our scripts in a repository, we can directly integrate them without any extra efforts. This meets the market requirement to centralize scripts and integrate them into any automation tool.

All of my needs are being resolved through this product.

Many times, the scripts are very lengthy, and traffic recording is tough. We're dealing with a huge chunk of data to record the traffic, and what happens is that LoadRunner takes a lot of time post-script validation to create its script after recording traffic from Ruckus. 

Sometimes, it gets hung because of the high resource utilization, and we have to re-record again if the requests are huge.

So, LoadRunner experiences high resource utilization. Even though we have machines with higher configurations, I've observed this behavior. Heavy traffic recording results in the tool hanging. So heavy traffic recording makes the tool slow.

To prepare a script, OpenText LoadRunner Professional slows down.

I have been using it for two and a half years. 

Stability really becomes apparent when comparing it to other tools. I have experience with tools like JMeter, Performance, and K6, and LoadRunner Professional is much more stable than those.

I rate the stability a nine out of ten because there might be some scope for improvement later.

It's easy to scale because it supports a distributed environment. For our use case, it's scalable.

Since it requires separate installations on each machine or terminal, I would rate scalability at eight out of ten. A single installation on our server terminal, used in slave terminals, could improve this.

We have a license for about 5,000 users, but currently, we are not using the full capacity. That’s our target limit. We are the IT team.

LoadRunner has a pretty good community. Before even connecting to customer support, we can find our answers on the community blogs. It's quite good.

Positive

We use JMeter right now for scripting purposes (simultaneously).

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being easy because it integrates everything that is required.

It hardly takes more than 15 minutes. To deploy LoadRunner Professional, we download the executables from the net and deploy them on a Windows machine using an installer. That's our approach for deployment.

We have seen ROI, and we plan on continuing to use it.

It is on the higher side when compared with other tools, but given the suite or package it provides, it is a fair price.

It’s a solid solution. We don’t need to buy extra plugins. It has good integration with various cloud platforms.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

Our use case is very complex because our company uses a lot of tools. We have more than 500 applications. Some of them are legacy applications created 40 or 50 years ago. We have applications created with different platforms such as Visual Basic, .Net, and C++. We have different platforms. We have mainframes, but LoadRunner is always perfect. It is able to handle everything.

LoadRunner Professional has helped a lot. Very often, I get a request from the release team, and I have one or two days to prepare a script and run the test. It is very fast and robust. LoadRunner does not need a lot of time to prepare results and drill down. It is very good. I also like network virtualization and service visualization.

LoadRunner Professional saves time because I know how to start, what I need to prepare, and what I need to put in conditions. It is very old. It saves 50% to 70% of my time because I have extensive experience with it.

It has helped improve our product quality and application quality. It helps to make decisions about whether to go or not go for something. We are a railway company, and we are not producing software. We develop software or solutions based on the existing solutions. For example, when we have an OpenText new release, we have to run performance tests against OpenText servers to validate that everything is okay. It is the same with other applications such as SAP and so on.

LoadRunner has helped to reduce our workload. I now have virtual users doing these tests. It is very good and flexible. For example, LoadRunner can now support Windows Server 2016, 2018, and 2019. I know that some other companies do not do that. It sometimes saves almost 100% of the workload because I have different applications, and I have to jump from one type of application to another. It is very good.

A few of our developers use LoadRunner Developer to start and run small unit tests, but they are application killers because all kinds of problems are seen at a very early stage.

We used the TruClient feature for browser-based testing. It helped me a lot. I remember when COVID started, we started to test an Amazon chatbot for our employees and customers for questions and answers. Amazon is using pretty tricky encryption, and LoadRunner was perfect. It saved me a lot of time. It was the first tool that worked with that level of correlation, security, and encryption. It was perfect for me.

TruClient has helped reduce scripting work. Very often, I also use TruClient for functional testing. It sometimes reduces even more than 80% of scripting work.

Our application performance is much better after running the tests. I can present monitoring results. I can present server results and database results. We can correlate them. We can correlate transaction failures, and we can correlate and see what went wrong on the server side or the database side. For example, for Oracle or SQL Server, we can monitor cursors and memory leaks. We found a lot of memory leaks with servers.

LoadRunner is a very sophisticated tool, and I can use many languages. For example, I can use Java. I can use C++. I can test the Internet of Things, FTP, mail, and Active Directory. It is very useful. 

I have a very good impression of LoadRunner. It is absolutely perfect. It is the best tool for not only performance testing but also for other things. Over the last 18 years, I do not remember any situation when I was not able to do something to solve my problem using LoadRunner. It is absolutely perfect and sophisticated.

I do not have any big challenges with LoadRunner. I only have some issues with load generators. It is a very common issue, and I hope it will be resolved in the latest release. For example, when we start to run our tests, users get the message that the load generator exceeded 80% of the CPU utilization. Even when the number of users is less, we get these messages. I am trying to resolve it, but it is not going. It is annoying. It is not a failure, but I hope that it will be resolved.

IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on. 

I have been using it since 1997. It was Mercury LoadRunner. It was earlier known as Astra, and then it became LoadRunner and continued to be called LoadRunner.

Over the last five years, I did not have any crashes with LoadRunner or load generators. I remember in 2013 or 2014, there were a few crashes of LoadRunner.

We have no problems with scalability. We have tons of licenses. We have 5,000 web and SAP licenses. We have had no problems from the LoadRunner side. We only have problems on the applications side.

Their support is very good and fast. As compared to some of the other companies, it is very good and fast. I would rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Deployment is totally my responsibility. I never had any issues with LoadRunner's deployment and installation. Just two years ago, there was some issue with licensing a utility on the controller. Other than that, it has been fine.

We have LoadRunner Professional in Canada, and we have LoadRunner Enterprise in Kansas City. We might combine them later into LoadRunner Cloud or LoadRunner Enterprise. We have not done it yet because the companies have joined. We have a network problem. We have to create a network access and trust policy.

It was implemented in-house.

It seems very good, and we decided to continue only with LoadRunner in Canada and the United States.

It is reasonable. We pay the cost, but we have everything. We have a big set of licenses for SAP and other applications. We have all kinds of licenses.

I know that we are trying to use JMeter, but it is very limited. It is a Java-based tool. JMeter cannot handle a lot of cases the way LoadRunner can. For example, we are still using a lot of mainframes. We have very old Visual Basic applications written in the previous century. JMeter is modern and limited. It is Java-based and web-based.

I know that in Kansas City, they did an evaluation of Tricentis Neoload. They use Tricentis qTest for test cases, and Tricentis proposed to check out Tricentis Neoload.

I would rate LoadRunner Professional a ten out of ten.

We primarily use it for load testing. We were seeking AI-enabled load testing, where we could input functional requirements. The idea is that the tool suggests test cases based on those requirements. 

This would help us streamline the process and reduce the time due to our limited staff for load testing, considering we handle around 200 projects a year. Our use case is to address resource constraints.

We do not have these unexpected outages because we didn't size our infrastructure feature based on the load. So we made an assumption or a guesstimate. When it would go live in production, things started breaking. 

That's where LoadRunner comes into the picture. We can run a realistic user load and see what functions are breaking. Because in IT, some functions work up to a little certain load. After that, they become fragile and stop working. 

We have a lot of distributed applications. That creates a lot of channels because we use ten different APIs and functions to provide one service for a user Outlook phone service. 

LoadRunner has helped us save time. If we don't do load testing, we'll end up opening seven or eight tickets and then redoing everything for the next six months. It definitely saves us time—approximately 30 to 40 days per project in man-hours.

Fewer outages mean better product quality for our customers and for our development team. Because then the development team doesn't need to focus on fixing what broke today and why it broke. 

Sometimes, when a function starts breaking under load, it's hard to determine the root cause. We might think that the function is not working properly, but it's actually working as per our requirements. It's not working for 20,000 or 10,000 users when we only tested it for 5,000 users. Then, database and server limits start popping up, issues that cannot be fixed quickly or easily. That's where load testing adds value. It allows us to break our product before a customer breaks it and then see what kind of issues we'll see under extra load. That's where LoadRunner comes in.

LoadRunner has helped us reduce our workloads. We avoid all these outages. We don't realize it until it breaks. We think, "Oh, we're not going to have any problems." But once it breaks, we have to bring in our resources, which should be working on a new project, but now they're stuck with this problem because we didn't do load testing. So, it all ties together. 

We don't find any features lacking. One of the most beneficial points we have from LoadRunner is we start sizing our infrastructure accordingly. So what we do is when we deploy a new workload, we do performance testing. 

We then do exercises to resize our infrastructure. So when architects, developers, and design engineers work together, they make a rough guesstimate of what infrastructure looks like for this scenario. 

With LoadRunner, we can size it, so it also provides a cost benefit for us because when we do a theoretical analysis, we might oversize. We might have bigger instances of servers and RAM and CPU. 

When we run it, we can do a two-sizing of our end; that helps save some cost. If it's undersized, we can increase the infrastructure aspect based on the load testing results.

The challenge lies in the time-consuming manual coding and testing. It takes a while to understand it, repeat it with the managers or a business analyst, and then share the reports with stakeholders, and the whole process takes time. So it would be beneficial for us if there is some kind of a dashboard where you can have different rules.

A dashboard with different rules would be beneficial for quick approvals and deployment, reducing the need for extensive meetings and email communication.

It could be improved in some areas to support the latest web technologies. For example, LoadRunner could be improved to better support single-page applications (SPAs).

Another way to improve LoadRunner would be to add better support for testing SPAs. Now, most people are going for WAV 2.0. Most of the applications are single-page applications where the browser is not refreshing. 

I've been using it for ten years.

It's pretty stable. We didn't have any issues with stability. 

It's a pretty scalable solution. We never had any issues with scalability. But our load is not as big as a giant enterprise might have.

The customer service and support are very good and responsive. 

Positive

The setup is pretty straightforward. The only scenario we see a complexity is when we have single-page applications where JavaScript is talking to the server and coming back. That's the only scenario where we find some difficulties.

We saw a return on investment in terms of reduced manual efforts. We improve customer experience. We reduce our support cost, and we definitely see value in it.

LoadRunner was the chosen one among the products available in the market. We chose LoadRunner because it was the best at that time. 

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten because single-page applications and some cloud functional testing could be improved.

My use cases span various industries, from banking and energy to health care and now in telecommunications. The requirements encompass tasks such as load generation, finding response times, UI interaction, and identifying network issues.

LoadRunner Professional installation is pretty straightforward. I encountered challenges mainly when working for an energy organization as part of a COE (Center of Excellence).

In such scenarios, handling projects varied, sometimes involving SaaS platforms or terminal emulators for different protocols. Dealing with less common protocols could be tricky, and that's when we require support.

LoadRunner has improved our processes in the sense that once you record a script, even if you have to run a small generation, a developer can run it. They can even use it for their regression testing, you can use it. With parameterization, we can reuse LoadRunner to run in different environments just by changing the URL. You don't have to rescript.

LoadRunner is a tool you need to invest in beforehand. Once the installation is done, the major investment goes into scripting. You have to customize the script.

Once the script is customized, it's reusable. In a day, you might need to run multiple performance tests, so you can just keep running them as many times as you can through, like in the pre-prod environment, and then the prod environment. It definitely saves a lot of time. 

Moreover, LoadRunner Professional has improved our product quality because, with the shift-left testing, we can detect early issues. We can run the test and then smaller bugs when it goes into production. The quality definitely improves.

It has also reduced the workload in the sense that when I was working in healthcare, we had to do a trend analysis report, and we wanted to run the test interactively. If we put the scenario in our auto-scheduler, we can check the report in the morning and we don't have to babysit it. We just run it.

In LoadRunner, the web protocol stands out as the strongest feature. It facilitates API testing and web load generation, and parameterization works exceptionally well.

We did not use TruClient for the load generation part. TruClient is a very heavy protocol, so it consumes a lot of memory and resources. Load generation cannot happen with TruClient protocols. 

We would inject a few TruClient users with the load just to assess when the load is happening and what a TruClient is. Our use case was very different because we just wanted to know the user browser rendering time. 

For us, it's not about how the users would use it for us, the use cases came from the UX designers. They would give us the requirement that if a page renders and you get a confirmation number, that is the last element to be loaded on the page. 

The product offers good site performance under peak loads. We were launching these websites for the healthcare industry. Our response time from some of the pages was seven seconds, and these pages are very intense with all the medical equipment on the page. It came down to seven seconds, and then we were aiming to get to three seconds. So every time we would run the test, we would find issues. Sometimes, the page renders with a thousand rows of data, but you can paginate it so that the first page loads. The rest of it actually happens in the background, so it has drastically improved the performance of the pages.

There are not many products out in the market that support multi-protocol.

Everybody is going into using it on a non-Windows-based platform. Currently, it is Windows-based, so the product can improve that to support 64-bit and iOS Mac devices.

I recently just got to see LoadRunner Developer, but it is still not fully developed to use.

I have been using this solution for around 17 years. 

It is pretty stable. Issues arise only when a patch or something comes back.

It's definitely scalable. It depends on the use case.

When we started looking into getting LoadRunner licenses for AT&T, we picked three out in the market, like BlazeMeter and NeoLoad. We wanted to evaluate everything. 

We gave a fair opportunity to all the other products so that every team member within our office could see everything. 

But from what we saw, LoadRunner was cutting-edge. There were so many things with BlazeMater. We couldn't do what we needed to do with other products. With LoadRunner, the documentation sometimes is not updated but we get support when we are stuck. It's a great tool. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. You get the executables.  You just need to get your hardware lined up, like which machine will be a controller and which machine will be a generator, whether you need two or three generators with whatever the requirement is. 

You install the controller analysis on one machine, and then you have low generator agents, and different machines, and you just install the software, and the machine talks to each other.

I installed LoadRunner Professional on the generators and the standalone machines. 

We saw a return on investment. For example, if a production outage happens, we lose a lot of money. LoadRunner is a fraction of what we would lose. 

It just pays off. We use the production downtimes as metrics for ROI. 

Shift-left is very new to our organization because we have been using professional/community licenses. We are trying to use enterprise now because, with professionals, it's a one-machine license. It's a single user. 

We pay a lot for licensing. But the incentive is the support we get with it, that we pay once, and we are set. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

It's mainly used for performance testing. One of its features called TrueClient has helped us see how users interact with our applications.

It also contributed to improving the quality of our products. By saving time, we're able to identify performance issues and address them more quickly, which ultimately leads to better quality.

It helped reduce our workload overall. The customization options make it easier to manage tasks.

We're now able to identify and address issues that arise during peak loads. We are able to figure out things and handle peak loads now. 

I appreciate its ability to handle various internal calls and its user-friendly interface.

Compared to other tools I've used, it saves about 20-30% of time due to its flexibility.

I also use the TrueClient feature for browser-based testing. I found the TrueClient feature to be a bit difficult to use and not very user-friendly for automating scripts. So there's room for improvement in that area.

There are a few features that I've seen in other tools that I'd like to see implemented or enhanced.

The installation and configuration process could be more streamlined, especially when it comes to distributed systems.

I have been using this tool for six years now. I use the Developer node.

It is a very old tool. It was originally with HPE, then Micro Focus, and now it's owned by OpenText.

The customer service and support are good.

Positive

We used JMeter. We switched because of the better support and flexibility offered by LoadRunner. It has a very wide range of support, covering most protocols and applications currently on the market.

It is on the higher side cost-wise, but the usability is good. If they reduced the cost, it would help smaller organizations like ours to take advantage of the features it offers.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. One of the biggest reasons is the TrueClient feature. It's very difficult to automate scripts with the TrueClient protocol.

My use case is for load testing and fine-tuning the system to prevent risks from going to production.

It helps save a lot of time compared to manual performance testing. It is like a robot that helps run the scripts. And other tools, such as free tools or IBM, are mostly programming-based. LoadRunner has more functions than other tools, and that also saves a lot of time compared to those tools.

The time savings mean it has reduced my workload. Using another tool, we could produce a script in about two days. But with LoadRunner, we can do it in one day or even less than one day. LoadRunner has also helped improve our product performance.

The most valuable feature depends on what we're doing at the time. In the past, the greatest feature was the ability to record and play back to produce a script. Another great feature is that we can monitor the system. They also support many protocols for performing load testing.

The monitoring technology in LoadRunner could be improved. It depends on another tool called SiteScope, but they only took a part of the features of SiteScope. They need to improve on that. If they don't do so, most of my customers will use another tool for monitoring instead of the LoadRunner package.

I have been working with OpenText LoadRunner Professional for about 20 years.

We haven't used their support much because we are better than them in some circumstances. When we have contacted them, it's to ask why a feature has been removed or something has been changed. That's when we have needed support.

The setup is not difficult. You just click, click, click, but there are prerequisites. They have a link to download it and get it installed. If someone is experienced with IT, they should be able to install it themselves.

But if an organization has a lot of hardening policies to block to execution, that makes it difficult for an admin to deliver.

The pricing model and the software licensing model could be better.

I have used other tools if our customer doesn't have the budget, including Jmeter, Silk Test, and many more. Sometimes we write programming to perform load tests ourselves. In terms of protocol support, LoadRunner is not much different than the other tools.

We used the solution's TruClient feature for browser-based testing about five years ago. It is quite good, but it consumes a lot of resources on the machine. It helped us a lot with scripting, but there are a lot of limitations as well when it comes to execution.

LoadRunner is not a tool for tuning, but it supports system tuning. Most of the time, once we use LoadRunner or whatever tools for performance testing, in the end, the system will have better performance. Most of the time, in the first run, the performance is not good. Then we tune it and everything is better and we can live-test the system.

If I rank LoadRunner without the pricing disadvantage and only on the technical functionality, I would rank it nine out of 10.

Grouping scripts based on IDs in LoadRunner Professional saved me a significant amount of time. Being able to record and manage scripts according to specific IDs streamlined the testing process. Using LoadRunner Professional's script grouping feature, I saved approximately 30 minutes on testing scheduling.

LoadRunner Professional's features, especially the script grouping, significantly contributed to improving product quality. The tool enabled efficient identification of issues during testing, fostering better collaboration within the team and facilitating quicker problem resolution.

LoadRunner Professional excels in simulating virtual users and assessing application performance. My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs. This allows for more organized and flexible testing scenarios. I appreciate the option to add and manage multiple scripts within these groups, providing a convenient way to handle diverse testing scenarios based on specific requirements.

In terms of improvement, it lacks mobile testing features present in some competitors, like GitMatters, which I find valuable. Adding this capability would enhance the tool's versatility, making it more convenient for testing mobile applications directly.

I have been working with LoadRunner Professional for a year.

We have not had any stability issues with the product so far.

The technical support for LoadRunner is generally responsive and helpful. I would rate them as a seven out of ten. While they address issues promptly, there is room for improvement when it involves collaboration with other technical support teams, which can sometimes extend resolution times.

Neutral

I have previously used JMeter.

Downloading LoadRunner Professional was straightforward via the portal, and the installation process was relatively easy, especially with a quick and standard setup. Overall, the initial deployment was user-friendly. It takes about 15 minutes to install it. LoadRunner Professional doesn't require much initial configuration. However, to test applications, it is necessary to open the firewall to accept traffic.

The pricing model, especially when involving partners, could use some improvement.

LoadRunner Professional greatly reduced my workload, I would say around an eight out of ten in an IT context. Its efficiency and helpful features made a substantial impact on the overall workload, streamlining processes and enhancing productivity.

Since using LoadRunner, my application or site has performed well under heavy loads, addressing errors originating from the server. The testing with LoadRunner helped identify and resolve issues, providing confidence in the application's performance even during peak loads.

I haven't had significant security issues since using LoadRunner for the past year. While I haven't explored its security features extensively, I haven't encountered any major problems. Contacting support has been helpful when needed.

Overall, I would rate LoadRunner Professional as an eight out of ten. It is user-friendly, the technical support is helpful, and the installation is straightforward.

In the banking industry, we utilize OpenText LoadRunner Professional to evaluate how systems handle increased workloads.

I implemented OpenText LoadRunner Professional because I encountered challenges when working with Oracle protocols in the banking industry, specifically regarding ticket resolution during correlation tasks.

What distinguishes OpenText LoadRunner Professional from other solutions is its controller log, which we use to simulate the number of users, and its user-friendly UI settings, which allows us to mimic user activity during performance testing.

LoadRunner has helped us save time. With a proper understanding of how the interface works, we can complete tasks quickly.

Employing LoadRunner has significantly enhanced our product quality, which is of paramount importance to us. With LoadRunner, we can precisely identify performance bottlenecks within our application and implement effective solutions to optimize its performance.

When it comes to simulation and report management, LoadRunner helps reduce our workload.

The front loader and the reporting features are the most valuable aspects of OpenText LoadRunner Professional.

The reporting and GUI have room for improvement.

I want LoadRunner Professional to have the capability to track various statistics from network databases and application servers. Currently, we rely on gathering this information from the respective teams. If LoadRunner Professional could provide this information, it would become our preferred tool.

I have been using OpenText LoadRunner Professional for 12 years.

OpenText LoadRunner Professional is a stable solution.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. While the solution is scalable, there is an associated cost.

While OpenText provides excellent customer support for partners, the lack of a phone support option limits the ways we can interact with them. The only methods of communication are through their portal or via email. If phone support were available, the overall support experience would be flawless. Sometimes, the issues we encounter are complex and challenging to resolve through text alone. Having access to 24/7 phone support would be immensely beneficial, allowing us to connect directly with representatives to discuss these matters effectively.

Positive

I have experience using Apache JMeter, LoadRunner Community Edition, and LoadRunner Cloud Edition. As a support specialist, I continue to utilize these solutions indirectly based on the project requirements, as I am not the decision-maker regarding the specific tool selection.

The initial deployment is straightforward, requiring only basic knowledge of the application and operating system. A detailed manual is available on the OpenText website for reference.

The implementation was completed in-house.

The price is a bit on the high side, but it is still affordable.

I would rate OpenText LoadRunner Professional nine out of ten.

I would only recommend LoadRunner Professional's TruClient feature for browser-based testing if it is for a single application as it is easier for scripting.