We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"We like that Apache JMeter has different features and different plugins and that they are free of charge."
"The ease of use is the solution's most valuable feature. Also, the ability to easily create test cases is also very good. It's easy to just ramp up on the solution."
"The thread groups, samplers, and listeners, which are all determined by the script's requirements, are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Apache JMeter is stable."
"The solution's initial setup is easy."
"The solution helps by detecting bottlenecks."
"The biggest thing I liked about it is that there is a huge user base out there, and being shareware and being Apache, if I have any question on how to get something done, I get 18 different answers. Out of those, there would be at least a few good approaches for what I was trying to do. So, the support system out there is most valuable."
"The solution is scalable."
"We haven't had an outage since we started using the solution."
"It is also good for reporting purposes, which would be most familiar for QC and UFT users."
"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"The solution does support a wide range of technologies and protocols. Plus, two features, network virtualization, and service virtualization, are really helpful. Apart from that, the way they have their billing scenarios, like the execution, is very good."
"The tool is very easy to set up and get running."
"With Performance Center, the version upgrade is easy. You just have to roll out the new patch or the new version."
"This is a product that has a lot of capabilities and is the most mature tool of its kind in the market."
"What I like most in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the comparison between two different exhibitions which gives value to my company. I also like that the solution is user-friendly, especially in terms of making specific changes. For example, in the past, you can't see the changes when you upload scripts into the Performance Center, but now, it has that visibility, so whenever you want, you can change the script in the Performance Center. I also like that Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the only tool you can utilize for all your needs, even for different protocols and scripting. The solution also has the latest features, for example, networkability, where it can, within the UI, follow the waterfall model. You can use the insights in the Performance Center of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise to address or test URLs that usually take up much time."
"The UI of the solution needs to be better. The UI takes up a lot of our bandwidth."
"The tool should be made a bit more robust, and better support should be made available."
"We would like more documentation to be provided for the advanced level features that are available in this solution, in order to improve development."
"The stability could be a bit better."
"The tool needs to have a better Graphical User Interface. Many of the solution's features are difficult to understand due to the complex user interface and user experience. The product needs to add plugins. It should also work on the integration with external partners like IDE and API gateways."
"The UI needs some work. The first time I used JMeter, I couldn't record the full scenario to mimic the user experience. Since then, they have introduced some plugins and a third-party tool called BlazeMeter."
"What needs improvement in Apache JMeter is the very high load requirements when you want to scale it beyond certain thresholds. For example, small to mid-range testing is very easily done with Apache JMeter, but if you scale and increase the load, then it would be a problem because the tool consumes a lot of resources, probably because Apache JMeter provides an enriched UI experience, so it consumes a lot of memory and requires high CPU usage. This means you have to manage your infrastructure, or else you'll have high overhead expenses. As Apache JMeter is a heavyweight tool, that is an area for improvement, though I'm unsure if Apache can do something about it because it could be a result of the way it's architected. What I'd like to see from Apache JMeter in the future is for it to transition to the cloud, as a lot of cloud technologies emerge around the globe, and a lot of people prefer cloud-based solutions or cloud-native tools. Even if a company has a legacy system, it's still possible to transition to the cloud. I've worked with a company that was an on-premise company that moved to the cloud and became cloud-native. If Apache JMeter could transition to the cloud, similar to k6, then it could help lessen the intense resource consumption that's currently happening in Apache JMeter."
"The reports in Apache JMeter could improve."
"The installation has not been straightforward, and we have had so many problems. We have had to re-install, try to install on a different machine, etc. We have not been able to launch the LRE server itself yet."
"The debugging feature needs to include graphs."
"The worst thing about it is it did not have zero footprint on your PC."
"The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise needs to add more features for Citrix performance-based applications testing. This was one of the challenges we observed. Additionally, we experienced some APIs challenges."
"It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems."
"Integration can be tricky during the setup process."
"It would be good if we could look forward at the future technology needs we have. I would like to see Micro Focus provide more customer awareness around how LoadRunner can fulfill requirements with Big Data use cases, for example, where you do performance testing at the scale of data lakes... when it comes to technologies our company has yet to adopt, I would like to see an indication from Micro Focus of how one does performance testing and what kinds of challenges can we foresee. Those kinds of studies would really help us."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Katalon Studio, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and OpenText ALM / Quality Center. See our Apache JMeter vs. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
