We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and OpenText LoadRunner Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Load Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I like the fact that JMeter integrates well with other tools."
"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."
"JMeter's most valuable feature is the RegEx Extractor."
"It's open source, so I like that about the product. And there's a lot of community support for it."
"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 product helps me get the expected performance from applications or servers and reduces costs. It also enhances the performance of the services and helped them reach their ultimate capacity."
"The solution is scalable."
"We like that Apache JMeter has different features and different plugins and that they are free of charge."
"LoadRunner is a very systematic tool for anyone to use. Even someone who is actually a first time user of LoadRunner can actually get a lot of benefit out of the tool."
"The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"The front loader and the reporting features are the most valuable aspects of OpenText LoadRunner Professional."
"The stability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is very high. It is the leading tool for stability."
"My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs."
"I appreciate its ability to handle various internal calls and its user-friendly interface."
"The capabilities and flexibility of the Controller, the ability to monitor the systems under test, and the comprehensive results Analysis which saves a great deal of time."
"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"Currently, the integration pipeline is implemented by using Jenkins or a similar tool platform. These are continuous integration tools. As far as I know, integration is done by using custom scripts. It would be good if the integration with a continuous integration pipeline, like Jenkins or Hudson, can be done out of the box without using a script."
"I sometimes found the documentation to be not as explanatory as I would've liked it. In the cases that I can think of, I was looking for a rather hand-holding approach with Step A, B, and C, but then I realized that with a product that is open source like this, you can't do handholding. That is because there are so many different uses and different unique environments and setups for it, but I remember thinking a few times that if they only just said this."
"In terms of platform support, they need to extend the support for backend platforms and more of the legacy types of platforms."
"Apache JMeter's UI can be made more colorful."
"The reporting is not very good."
"The initial setup is complex and needs to be upgraded."
"Apache JMeter could be a more user-friendly product from the end user's perspective."
"If JMeter could provide a web version of editing, that would be good."
"If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help."
"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
"Support for Microsoft Dynamics needs improvement."
"The tool needs to work on capture script feature."
"There is room for improvement of the pilot processing, the dump analysis, and forwarding results based on the dump analysis. We have a generator, root controller, different agents, and an analyzer, so all of these are very important when it comes to LoadRunner."
"The initial start-up of Micro Focus LoadRunner could be improved. When we add 20 or 30 scripts, the refresh is completed one by one. I would like to be able to select all the script at one time, so it can be completed in a single click, reducing the time required."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Load Testing Tools with 81 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 76 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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 Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". Apache JMeter is most compared with Postman, BlazeMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and ReadyAPI, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, IBM Rational Performance Tester and BlazeMeter. See our Apache JMeter vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional report.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors and best Performance Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.