We performed a comparison between Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional and Silk Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Perforce, Micro Focus and others in Performance Testing Tools."A very comprehensive tool that is good for performance testing."
"The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it."
"Graph monitoring is a valuable feature."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"LoadRunner Professional allowed us to load test potential new payroll solutions that would be implemented throughout the entire organization so that we knew which was best suited to performing well under pressure."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional are scripting and executing the tests."
"It has features for recording. The best feature with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is that there is very little bottleneck or overhead issues. With LoadRunner, you can spawn 2000 contributions for one machine."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
"I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support."
"We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market."
"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."
"The solution lacks some form of integration."
"Lacks specific level monitoring."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional can improve the implementation of digital areas, such as digital testing, UI and native application, and native mobile applications."
"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 technical support of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. I had an issue with the licensing and their response time is slow. They can improve on this in the future."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."
More Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is ranked 3rd in Performance Testing Tools with 15 reviews while Silk Test is ranked 19th in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews. Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.6, while Silk Test is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional writes "Is very user-friendly, supports other tools, and provides in-depth and more detailed analyses". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Silk Test writes "A stable solution with good scripting feature, but needs better scalability and a bigger pool of third-party contractors". Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, Apache JMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud and Selenium HQ, whereas Silk Test is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Selenium HQ, Apache JMeter, SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis Tosca.
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.
