What we like the most is that it integrates with UC. We use UC for our front-end user experience. It's a more realistic user experience.
We use the script from the user experience and we use the action times from the UC.
What we like the most is that it integrates with UC. We use UC for our front-end user experience. It's a more realistic user experience.
We use the script from the user experience and we use the action times from the UC.
If they were able to, I would say that the scalability could be improved. If the costs were not as expensive to upgrade, then we would scale it more.
The initial setup could be simplified.
I would like to see better licensing costs.
I have been working with this solution for ten years.
It's a stable solution. In the ten years that we have been using it, I have only had an issue once. We had an issue with the protocol where it didn't support the job. We contacted support.
It's a scalable solution but I think that the Enterprise version is more scalable and more manageable.
It's fine for us, as we only have a few projects a year. On a larger scale, Enterprise would be better than the Professional edition.
When I had contacted technical support they very helpful.
Previous versions were easy to install but we struggled with the LoadRunner Enterprise to get it to work. It was a bit challenging.
LoadRunner Professional is an expensive product.
I like using LoadRunner and I recommend it.
I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
We are customers of Micro Focus and I'm an end-user.
Graph monitoring is a valuable feature.
Some form of automation is needed in this product, whether it's integration with CI/CD or providing the facility to import JSON files, so that we can automatically create the scripts. I think it's reasonable to expect that kind of feature.
I've been using this solution for four years.
The solution is stable although we sometimes face issues in developing scripts but it's a problem that can be easily reverified and edited.
The solution is scalable.
Customer support is available online and it's good enough for solving the general problems that pop up.
The setup is straightforward. We are a large company so I'm not sure how many are using this solution. In my department there are four users on our current project.
I rate this solution eight out of 10.
I have been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for approximately 11 years.
The stability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is very high. It is the leading tool for stability.
The scalability is good.
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.
I would rate the technical support of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional a three out of five.
The licensing of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. If it can be easier and the concurrent run can be included with the current total number of users, it would be helpful.
I would recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional above all other testing tools.
I rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional a nine out of ten.
Micro Focus does not have the limitations that other solutions have. It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system. It also has multiple protocols.
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 of the script at one time, so it can be completed in a single click, reducing the time required.
I have been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for five and a half years.
The solution is stable.
Micro Focus is scalable.
Micro Focus LoadRunner is the best tool in the market. There are many open-source tools but most have limitations, Micro Focus does not.
I would rate this solution a 9 out of 10.