We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise and ReadyAPI 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."Our main use case for the product was load and stress testing. It helped us put the system under stress by injecting in multiple users, such as 5,000 users."
"Support is nice, quick, and responsive."
"Provides the performance of load test applications and reliably on good reporting."
"It is also good for reporting purposes, which would be most familiar for QC and UFT users."
"I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself."
"With LoadRunner Enterprise, doing various types of performance testing, load testing, and automation testing has been very helpful for some of the teams."
"We can measure metrics like hits per second and detect deviations or issues through graphs. We can filter out response times based on timings and identify spikes in the database or AWS reports."
"This product is better oriented to large, enterprise-oriented organizations."
"The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test."
"The most valuable features are the integration with Jira and the test management tools."
"It's great for those that don't have as much exposure to programming."
"The great thing about ReadyAPI is that it has a wide variety of functions. You can test any API that you come across. You are not limited to one type of API. It supports many APIs."
"The most valuable feature has been the assertion as a test step as this has allowed us to increase the scope of testing and validation."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them."
"I haven't seen any other tool that offers both types of tests. This is very helpful for us, and it's one of the main reasons why we chose this service."
"Dashboard creation should be implemented, so we can get the results in a desired format."
"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."
"It is tough to maintain from the infrastructure side."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise needs to improve reporting."
"I'd rate the scalability a six out of ten. The main reason is that it's a very expensive application. Other companies might not be able to afford it. For example, if we need to test an application with 10,000 concurrent users, the license can cost a lot of money. That's where OpenText tools shoot themselves in the foot compared to other tools. Because of the price, many companies, like one I used to work for, decided not to renew their licenses and switched to open-source testing tools."
"Currently, when we try open LRE we encounter cookie banner issues. However, I'm not sure if it is within the enterprise solution or with the vendors."
"The cost of the solution is high and can be improved."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, I need to spend a lot of time training people, while on other low-code or no-code platforms, I need not invest that much time."
"In terms of features, I have already raised different change requests on the ReadyAPI side. One of the largest functions I've requested is the validation of the payload for the REST APIs."
"Many users will consider this solution expensive compared to the layout. It is more expensive than other solutions."
"The initial setup could be less complex."
"The content on ReadyAPI in SmartBear Academy is outdated."
"Version control does not work well."
"Better compatibility or more support for the older versions would be helpful."
"I would like to see a better dashboard for monitoring in the next release of this solution."
"The reporting in ReadyAPI could be better. It can become sloppy, sometimes it works and other times it does not."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Performance Testing Tools with 34 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Eggplant Performance, whereas ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, ReadyAPI Test and Tricentis Tosca. See our OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise vs. ReadyAPI report.
See our list of best Performance 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.
