We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Qualitia Automation Studio based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"Its variety of testing tools for different applications is of great benefit, as well as its integration capabilities with other testing and monitoring solutions."
"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."
"LoadRunner is a very sophisticated tool, and I can use many languages. For example, I can use Java. I can use C++. I can test the Internet of Things, FTP, mail, and Active Directory. It is very useful."
"The solution is quite stable."
"The ability to do multithreading. That's available in any performance testing tool, but the number of protocols that this particular tool supports has been very good."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The best feature of this solution is the fact that it offers scriptless automation. You don't need to know how to code or program to use it."
"There is room for improvement of the pilot processing, the dump analysis, and forwarding results based on the dump analysis. We have a generator, root controller, different agents, and an analyzer, so all of these are very important when it comes to LoadRunner."
"Support for Microsoft Dynamics needs improvement."
"If the support of the protocols was the same throughout the other protocols and it was there evenly, then I would rate the product higher."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support."
"In terms of improvement, it lacks mobile testing features present in some competitors, like GitMatters, which I find valuable."
"LoadRunner experiences high resource utilization. Even though we have machines with higher configurations, I've observed this behavior. Heavy traffic recording results in the tool hanging. So heavy traffic recording makes the tool slow."
"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 integrations for this solutions could be improved, specifically for Slack."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews while Qualitia Automation Studio is ranked 23rd in Test Automation Tools with 5 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while Qualitia Automation Studio 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 Qualitia Automation Studio writes "Good Tool for Non Technical Users". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and IBM Rational Performance Tester, whereas Qualitia Automation Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One and Selenium HQ.
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.