We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional and StresStimulus 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."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."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"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."
"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."
"The solution supports a lot of protocols."
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"It has good protocol coverage."
"I appreciate its ability to handle various internal calls and its user-friendly interface."
"Compared to other tools, there is not a whole lot to Stress Stimulus UI. This makes it easy to use, be it while scripting, executing, or having to train someone new to the team."
"Technical support is great."
"Designed to be a modern testing tool, StresStimulus made it easy for us to upgrade from an older deprecated testing tool and adapt to Agile DevOps testing principles by shifting left with performance testing."
"Sometimes we are not be able to click on some of the buttons due to the screen mismatching and compatibility issues."
"The price of this solution should be cheaper."
"Compared to some other vendors, there is a lack of community support."
"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."
"I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high-quality technical support, I rate the support a one."
"The pricing model, selling model, and business model need to be adjusted. For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost."
"We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly."
"StresStimulus has a dedicated blog where users of the tool can log new feature requests or enhancements to existing features."
"We run tests on SQL statements and stored procedures directly, even before integrating with UI. I wish there were a way to connect to my application DB and run SQL queries using a JDBC connection."
"Result analysis (snap-out tabs for side-by-side comparisons) need improvement."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews while StresStimulus is ranked 13th in Performance Testing Tools with 3 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while StresStimulus 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 StresStimulus writes "Reliable with excellent support but needs better source control integration and versioning". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and IBM Rational Performance Tester, whereas StresStimulus is most compared with Apache JMeter. See our OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs. StresStimulus report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load 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.