We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional and OpenText Silk Performer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Load Testing Tools."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."
"I appreciate its ability to handle various internal calls and its user-friendly interface."
"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."
"We don't find any features lacking. One of the most beneficial points we have from LoadRunner is we start sizing our infrastructure accordingly. So what we do is when we deploy a new workload, we do performance testing."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports."
"I like LoadRunner's ability to use multiple protocols. That's one of the greatest features along with the ability to test service calls between the app and server."
"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"A good monitoring tool, simple to script and easy to configure."
"The solution uses a lot of memory and then it dies. It's difficult to work with the solution sometimes when you run a scenario it dies. They need to make the solution lighter somehow."
"I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients."
"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 guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"The only scenario we see a complexity is when we have single-page applications where JavaScript is talking to the server and coming back. That's the only scenario where we find some difficulties."
"The product is pretty heavy and should be more lightweight."
"There's a reporting part of the cloud that could be improved a little bit."
"The tool needs to work on capture script feature."
"If you have a large amount of data, the solution can struggle."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 76 reviews while OpenText Silk Performer is ranked 10th in Load Testing Tools with 1 review. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while OpenText Silk Performer is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Silk Performer writes "Scripting and basic test executions are good features; configuring the workload for tests is easy". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and IBM Rational Performance Tester, whereas OpenText Silk Performer is most compared with Apache JMeter and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise.
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.