RadView WebLOAD Reviews

We have a web application that accesses the database and so we're testing the responsiveness of both the login and functionality around accessing a patient, which is the database functionality.

The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process.

The reporting side of things is really complicated. It's difficult to get out exactly what you're looking for, there are almost too many options. In order to get a report out of it, there are so many options that it almost gets overwhelming.

If it was simpler or like right now, we're having to go through RadView to figure out what exactly we want and we have a meeting with them coming up soon. It's not intuitive to get the report that I'm looking for.

We've had WebLOAD for five to six years and I've been using it for two to three.

It's very stable. We haven't had any stability issues.

You pay for the number of users that you're going to be utilizing. In order to scale up, you would have to pay for additional users, but for our use case, we're able to scale fairly easily.

We have a license for 500, but we're using half of that for our initial workflow.

For maintenance, as far as I'm aware, there's only one person really working on the maintenance of it and we only really have one user consistently using the software. He's a QA person. 

We don't have any plans to increase our usage. Even though we've had it for a while, we have a major push to start utilizing it more. I imagine we'll probably be using it and utilizing it across our QA team in the next year. We're in the process of determining whether we're going to keep it or not due to the fact that it is so expensive. That's why I've been researching alternatives for the RadView.

The initial setup was fairly complicated but I think that's pretty standard across the board for most load test software.

It costs $8,600 yearly and we have the Cloud, which is an additional $800. Our perpetual license is $800 and then the Cloud functionality with our 500 users is the $8,600.

The reporting functionality and actually running the load tests are fairly difficult, for a brand new user that's never done any load testing, it's fairly complex. There's a steep learning curve.

In the next release, I would like to have better documentation on how to use the tool. Their support is fairly responsive, so that's a good thing. I would like to have better documentation so that I don't have to go to support in order to get the help that I need. It'd be nice if we had documentation that would allow me to do it myself.

I would rate it a five out of ten. 

Our primary use case for the solution is for graph testing on programming software.

The information provided via the solution and the dashboard is valuable. Additionally, it's interesting as you can view inside information integrated and see the WebLOAD with APM.

There is no analytical dashboard and it should be included in the next release.

We have been using the solution for approximately four years.

The solution is stable, and we don't find a lot of bugs. We have done many tests, stress tests and regressions, and it has remained steady.

We do not have experience with customer service and support.

The initial setup is not complex if you have background knowledge. I rate the solution a four out of ten, with one being easy and ten being hard.

We deployed the solution in-house, and deployment takes approximately ten minutes.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. The solution is simple and useful and has assisted many workers. It can be improved by adding an analytical dashboard in the next release.

Our primary use case for this solution is performance testing. Before we put an application into production, we use this solution to test it. If we think that our application will be used by one hundred users, then we test to see if it is accessible for two hundred. Essentially, it is a stress-test to see if the application can support this volume.

We have an on-premises deployment.

This has allowed us to determine the robustness of our application of how many concurrent users can used the system. This has allowed us to determine the latency, response time issue and failure that might occur in production environment

The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting. It is interesting, intuitive, and we can do some parameterization. It is very good.We can use an Existing template for our reporting or devise our own portfolio for the reporting with different analytic 

We have had a lot of trouble with this solution, and it is actually adapted to our application.

Technical support is slow and takes lot of time, so it needs to be improved. Because we don't have any support for this solution, we are thinking about changing.

The user documentation is too long .

If the developer could write their own code then this solution would be much better. When you hit record and play, you don't know what is happening in the background. It is generating code, but you don't see it.

This solution is difficult to work with.

I have been working with this solution for about four months.

This is a very powerful software and we haven't had any crashes. It is stable.

This solution is only used before we put an application into production, which is not on a daily basis.

Scalability depends on what you want to do. For example, if you have your own way of scripting, in a specific language, then you need to have the documentation for it.

The technical support for this solution is poor. The process is slow and explain things to you directly.

Online support is lacking because when you use Google to search for errors related to WebLOAD, you don't get any information pertaining to it.

You get the documentation, but you don't get much more than that. When you are searching for something specific, you get nothing.

There is too much documentation required in order to set up this solution.

We purchased a license for two years. The product is expensive, but other free tool can still be evaluated, (Selenium Grid)

We do not use this solution often because it doesn't apply to our platform.

I would like to know if it is possible to write the code from scratch, but this is something that I have not been able to find out. This is very important. If it had this option then it would be a very good application. Currently, it is only record and play, which I is not too accurate .

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

From my perspective, the most valuable feature is the ability to test APIs. Another benefit is how the correlation engine turn a lot of the dynamic contents into variables. That's a real big thing for us.

It's a pretty strong product from a load-testing perspective, easy to use and you can actually get the tool up running fairly quickly. It would be great, in addition to the load tool, it would be nice, if Radview offered a JavaScript based functional test tool as well. That would be nice.

We have been using RadView since about 2003.

None

It's stable. It's a pretty quick and easy install, even when they added the analytical piece, before the reports were built into the console. It's still there, but they added a WebLOAD Analytics component, which actually stores metrics in a postgresql database. When they incorporated that into the tool, I didn't have any problems with the WebLOAD Analytics integration. It was a pretty quick install. You still get the reports in the console, as well, and it was pretty much up and running real quickly. It's fairly easy to use. Pretty simple. We didn't have any issues.

In order to scale up, it's really on the onus of the user of the product. We have a registration service for students, and we want to ensure that it would handle any registration loads. We pushed it to the target load, which is 3000 VCs, and we had to add more resources to the load machine, and also to the console component. We added more RAM and CPU in order to handle the target load, so we can drive it at the application test.

Technical support is responsive. To take it a step further, I've participated in several betas, including the first new-look redesign, so I got to see the product before it was actually introduced to the customers. They actually went back and made design changes based on my feedback. Back in 2003, they used to do recording at the protocol layer. Then they switched to the more interactive interface; both functional and load scripts, and decided to go back to the protocol layer recording. They added mobile, and they added a more robust correlation engine, so I got a chance to look at that, as well.

I made some suggestions to the new-look redesign as we went through beta, and they incorporated some of my feedback. Specifically, I suggested a change to the statistical-cause analysis component, and I thought they were very responsive.

There isn't any downtime because of upgrade installation. The only downtime is actually scheduling. Load tests are roughly 5% of what we do, and if we have to do an upgrade, it's more or less upgrading all of the machines. We have three Microsoft Windows load machines and three Linux software load machines and each one of our analyst has a console on their desktop. It's just scheduling the downtime on the machines, which really isn't too hard. Once you actually schedule the downtime, it installs pretty quickly. It's just that you have to upgrade all Radview machines, once you've moved to a new version of it, and all the components in the environment have to be upgraded to that version as well. It's just scheduling downtime in machines, and bringing it back up after the install has run. It's a very quick install.

RadView WebLOAD, HP LoadRunner, and other load tools pretty much provide the same metrics, but if you're in a situation where cost is an issue, then I would recommend the RadView tool because the other tools could be cost-prohibitive.

It's less expensive than a lot of the load tools that are out there that perform the same task. It's a quick and dirty tool to get up and running really quickly. It's not like you have to do an awful lot of configuration. The analytics pack is probably one of the most powerful tools that I've seen. It's real powerful in terms of reporting.

There's also custom reports that you can build specifically for end user reporting, because that's what they really want. The person requesting the test wants to see analysis pretty quickly, and with WebLOAD Analytics you crank them out really quickly. Creating that customer report through analytics is pretty straightforward.

• The ability to and conceptualize the experience for users is great.
• Also, the price as the bang for your buck is good.
• I also really like the user interface as it is quite user friendly.
• Lastly, the graphics make it easy to follow and are easy to identify.

We updated to the system and did thorough testing. Before we updated the site, we used the system to see what the experience would be for the user, if it would be fast enough in particular. It's a great way to check response times, including across different networks.

We'll definitely continue to use it into the future.

When it finds a problem with response times, it doesn't specify exactly where the problem actually is. It just says that there is a problem.

For example, it says the time, and we can see if the response time is taking too long, but it doesn't necessarily specify where along the path the problem lies.

We've used it for a year and a half.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

We upgraded from 2,000 to 6,000 users with no problems.

10/10

10/10

We previously used LoadRunner, and switched because of the price.

It was easy.

We used a vendor team and they were 10/10.

We did evaluate other products, particularly a product called JMeter. We thought it would to be difficult to deploy and require significantly more programming.

You need to find a person who understands the product and have him show you how to take advantage of it.

The real time stats that come back while the load tests are loading. I’m really happy with the throttle control, I really get a lot of value by being able to slow down the load tests or speed them up while they are running. I like the ease of the scripting that's required for building up the load plans. It works really well and checking is very reliable.

Well there’s one issue when I have five or six scripts-- you have to set up different percentages and the number of connections and users, no matter how I tweak it seems that when I have one of the load scripts in the mix set, a percentage of less than 8-10%, there’s a probability that it won’t run at all. Under 10% they have some fine tuning that needs to be done. I try to work around that and set it at 10% and then increase sleep intervals, etc. I wouldn’t have expected it to not run. Even if it’s at 1% it should run. That’s one thing, it’s more of a bug which isn’t holding me back.

Another thing, is that we have a VPN and two part authentication that only stays up for 24 hours, what I typically do is reset my VPN connection and start load test, I’m guaranteed to have it for 24 hours before the VPN shuts down the console. I don’t know if there’s a work around where the load will keep running. I know that there is a WebLoad plugin, which we haven’t tried.

I've used it for three and a half years.

I really like the stability of the product, I noticed when using it at first it would crash and was tough to configure but the latest version is a lot easier to get up and running and it’s very reliable.

It's excellent.

It's excellent. I ran in to one issue where I didn’t understand something in the script. They gave me an immediate answer and I was very happy, worked like a charm.

It was straightforward, we had great documentation. I’d give Radview 10/10 for documentation. It was split out very nicely. We had no issues it was very clear.

We did it all within our own team. It was set up very fast.

It’s been very positive. The tool itself is very viable for us. I have used it in two different capabilities. A web based app and generating load traffic through the scripts. We are driving traffic from this and we want to make sure we can handle much higher load from scalability and testing standpoint. In both cases the tool works very well.

The features that I really appreciate the most are the use of a standard scripting language, JavaScript. I find the ease of use and the flexibility of the JavaScript standard to be one of the leading features of the tool. It gives us a lot of flexibility to extend the functionality of Webload using industry standard libraries. So that flexibility, and the use of a standard scripting language, are some of the number one features.

We’re working with Radview to make it a 10; they are very receptive to all of our suggestions for improvement. They can improve in the reporting - the ability to generate custom reports. It may be that we don’t know enough, but certainly the data is there.

Personally, I have used the solution for two and half years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

They are the best of all of the vendors I deal with, hands down. They are there when we need them. I couldn’t ask for anything more.

We deploy it quite frequently with current integrations. We use the integration with Amazon Web Services very frequently with the standup of additional which makes capacity very easy within the tool. As it integrates very easily with AWS, it allows the creating of load generators on demand, and then tearing them down after, so we can save on cost.

It was done in-house. We used the Radview training services. It was very well done, we were pleased. The integrations don’t require Radview’s services. They have very good tutorials online, and the intensive training they provided was great.

There has been an ROI, as since we implemented a more robust performance testing program on our own products, our customer’s satisfaction has increased. That’s how I would measure the value.

They are more than competitive; they are hands down better than their competitors. It’s just a better product, so it’s a no brainer.

I think that we have a very good working relationship. They are very responsive to our needs, if that be support or implementation of new features. One of the things I have enjoyed the most is being able to influence the features implemented. They ask for feature requests and things we may need and they have acted upon those and given us additional features. The relationship has been very good, no issues whatsoever.

The ability to manage easily the agenda and the scripts have been the most valuable feature for us.

It gives the customer the ability to vary the number of users as needed – we do smaller quantities in our environment, and having the ability to variable the agenda allows you to adjust and set what quantity of virtual users you need against the baseline.

In learning how to use some of its capabilities to use more details of the tool, we find that it's not utilizing yet all of the features. I think we are not yet familiar with the entirety of its capabilities.

We have used the solution for 6-7 years.

We've not really had any issues with deployment. We deployed it on one box and then re-deployed a year-and-a-half ago, which was a little bit of a challenge just knowing how to have the distributed tests amongst different machines.

We did have an issue with some of the script working incorrectly in our higher environments. It's relatively stable but it was surprising we had to reinstall.

Not applicable – we have had no need to scale it significantly.

I haven’t used it to any significant degree, but I’d say it's good.

Technical support has been excellent, responsive, and helpful in trying to work through issues and questions.

No.

Initial setup was straightforward.

I believe it was in-house.

I would say moderate – it provides an extra level of assurance as we use it as needed.

Dedicate a person who will be able to put into a bit of time learning a lot of the features when adopting the product.

It integrates with Amazon Web Services (AWS). That's definitely the number one most valuable feature for me.

We installed a brand new Oracle hardware server rack system on our enterprise platform.

Webload allowed us to test our registration process and to register thousands of students, many of them within the first minutes registration was open.

It was important that we were able to test our hardware prior to the event occurring.

I would like to be able to edit a scenario instead of re-recording a scenario.

Should one of the internal sites change you have to re-record from start to finish, and it would be good to be able to click through without having to start the process again.

I've used Radview Webload for one year.

We did at first when we had a huge number we were trying to test with. We had set up testing in a way that was not adequate, but the AWS integration was huge because it could handle the volume we needed.

No issues.

It scales very easily. You have to put together a file of how many test samples you want, and we pulled a sample that ranged from 5 to 20 and to 1500.

Customer service is excellent. They're very responsive and willing to work extra hours. In the first couple of hours that we were up and running, they taught us how to implement it and to figure out and negotiate AWS. They were excellent.

NA

We did not use a previous solution.

Ease/complexity of setup was somewhere in the middle. There wasn't a lot of coding, but it's an intricate product and once you learn it, it's easy to maintain and manage. But there certainly was a bit of training at the outset with their staff and mine.

We implemented with a vendor team whose expertise was very high. Specifically, one of the things we looked at was the higher-education qualifications. They are the vendor’s testing team and knowing that they work with our vendor was very helpful.

NA

We looked at a bunch of solutions.

I would say, plan well in advance for some testing of smaller populations and for time to play with it and acclimate. There is a pretty steep learning curve, but once you learn it, it's smooth sailing from there.