We performed a comparison between Cavisson NetStorm and OpenText LoadRunner Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Load Testing Tools."This tool helps to focus on real-time transactions that occur at a very high rate."
"NetStorm can generate high load with a single machine. Its Runlogic feature is very useful to send load to cover each and every flow of the application. NetStorm gives the feasibility of generating load with multiple load arrival models helping components to be tested based on its usage."
"Designs dynamic scripts and scenarios, as per our requirements, which is one the most important feature available in NetStorm. It helps us to do performance testing of our application in a periodic way."
"The most important feature for us is that it supports a lot of protocols because we support all of them, including HTTP, FTP, mainframe, and others."
"There are various languages that they allow those programs to be written in, whether you want to use Java or something else."
"It is a good and stable tool."
"My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs."
"I like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good."
"I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional's stability at eight out of ten."
"The solution helps my clients save time. It is easier to capture reports and improves product quality. The product helps to identify customer defects during performance tests and reduces workloads. The product has improved my client's user interaction. It has reduced peak load times."
"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."
"In the next release, we are looking for a JS instrumentation feature that would be helpful in identifying client-side issues at an early stage, or during testing."
"The user interface had to be improved for the product. Its user interface should be made simple and easy to customize as per user needs."
"Need to add or support some more APIs in the Script Manager window."
"Sometimes, we aren't able to see an accurate page view while replying and executing the script. When you are navigating the application side by side, it needs to be displayed on a random viewer. Sometimes we will get a few applications, and we won't get others."
"The debugging capability should be improved."
"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"Compared to some other vendors, there is a lack of community support."
"The reporting and GUI have room for improvement."
"Micro Focus has two separate products for web and mobile applications, which means you have to invest in both."
"If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help."
"In terms of resource management, you need a lot of high capacity boxes if you need to generate a load of 1,000 or 2,000 users."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Cavisson NetStorm is ranked 19th in Load Testing Tools while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 76 reviews. Cavisson NetStorm is rated 9.4, while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cavisson NetStorm writes "Has monitoring capabilities integrated into it to see the performance of components while the test is in the running phase". 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". Cavisson NetStorm is most compared with Apache JMeter, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and IBM Rational Performance Tester.
See our list of best Load 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.