We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, and Tricentis Flood based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Load Testing Tools.
"Apache JMeter is well-known and widely used among developers, particularly on popular developer forums. While it may not have the most user-friendly interface, it offers strong support through official manuals and various articles from companies providing load testing services. The tool is free, has a substantial community, and serves as a fundamental choice for testers, especially those new to performance testing. While other tools like K6 may be more developer-oriented, JMeter's affordability and accessibility make it suitable for those without extensive performance testing experience."
"The scripting ability is most valuable. It is easy to use. There is a UI, and you can go in there and figure those things out. After you've got a good set of tests, you basically have a scripted document that you can grab and execute in a pipeline. It is pretty quick to set up, and you can scale it and version control it."
"The reporting features are really good. There's a lot less latency than other solutions."
"The solution is free. You don't need to worry about licensing costs."
"The most valuable feature of Apache JMeter is its popularity. It is the best open-source tool with all the features needed."
"The distributed load testing is very good with Apache JMeter."
"JMeter is easy to use for a user who doesn't have too much knowledge of programming or certain languages."
"We find the ease of use and the reports and graphs available valuable."
"With LoadRunner Enterprise, doing various types of performance testing, load testing, and automation testing has been very helpful for some of the teams."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise supports a lot of technologies. The existing performance testing that this tool is capable of is good. The protocols that are available are widely varied when compared to other performance testing tools."
"The most beneficial features of the solution are flexibility and versatility in their performance."
"The host performance testing of any application using a host/controller is the most valuable feature."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's best feature is the detailed reporting structure."
"The tool is very easy to set up and get running."
"The solution is a very user-friendly tool, especially when you compare it to a competitor like BlazeMeter."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"Their technical support is awesome."
"You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
"At times when we overload the application, it gets stuck...After the solution gets stuck due to overloading, we have to restart our computers. In short, the solution keeps crashing."
"The UI of the solution needs to be better. The UI takes up a lot of our bandwidth."
"One of the drawbacks of JMeter is that it can't handle a large amount of load, which forces us to switch to other tools when we need to load more than a 5,000 or 10,000 user load."
"Automation is difficult in JMeter."
"The installation needs some work. It could be simplified."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner we can go from the UI and we can configure it. There is no such feature in Apache JMeter. There should be UI-based recording history or logs."
"JMeter is lagging when it comes to GUI performance testing because we need to install some third-party plugins for recording the GUI script, and the performance isn't very reliable."
"Apache JMeter could be a more user-friendly product from the end user's perspective."
"I believe the data that demonstrates the automated correlations should be corrected."
"When we have a new application, recording the application is a pretty tough task. We have tried multiple things. We do scripting or try to record with different settings and on different machines. We try to record multiple times, but we do not know why it is recording and why it is not recording. We do the same thing on different machines. It sometimes records, and at other times, it does not. That is one of the major concerns."
"The price of this solution could be less expensive. However, this category of solutions is expensive."
"The solution is expensive."
"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."
"The solution is a very expensive tool when compared with other tools."
"They had wanted to change the GUI to improve the look and feel. However, since that time, we see a lot of hanging issues."
"New features have been added in latest version and need to be improved with the DevOps integration."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"We used an implementation strategy to deploy the solution, not because of the tools, but mainly because of the scripting part of the tool."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
