OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Reviews

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise scripting tool. We run scripts using this tool. The performance center is where we do the simulations and testing based on whatever application the organization that I work for uses.

The most valuable aspect of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the overall support it has for a lot of different applications and defined domains.

The price of this solution could be less expensive. However, this category of solutions is expensive.

I have been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise for approximately 13 years.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is stable. We are in the process of upgrading to the newer version, but the version we are using supports many applications, such as web and Java-based applications.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is scalable.

We have three people using this solution in my organization.

I have previously used JMeter.

We install Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise in our local systems.

We did the installation of the solution with our system administrators or a manager who has access. Not everyone has the correct access to install the software.

This solution can be expensive.

One person is enough for the maintenance of the solution when we have three people using it.

I rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise a ten out of ten.

Mostly it's to test APIs. That's been the main use case.

I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself. You can make a quick change.

The setup is straightforward. 

It's a stable solution. 

Support is helpful. 

Honestly, there really isn't any area for improvement. I think it's a great product.

Maybe the scroll bars could be a little bit bigger.

The solution is expensive. 

If they had an easy integration with, let's say, New Relic or Dynatrace, that would be something interesting. If we can see server monitoring data in the LoadRunner report, that would be ideal.

I've been using the solution for one year.

The product is reliable. It's stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We don't have too many people on the solution right now. We have ten to 15 people using it. We're using it almost daily. It's used 60% to 70% of the time. 

Support has been okay. Yeah, they've been pretty knowledgeable about everything. Responses are generally on time. I typically get a response within a day or so.

Positive

We previously used WebLOAD. In WebLOAD, to set it up, if your script needs to use a data file, it's a wizard. It takes six or seven steps to set it up. In LoadRunner, it's a lot easier. It doesn't take that long. It's a very straightforward process.  

The other thing is, RadView uses JavaScript language for the script, whereas LoadRunner uses C. LoadRunner recently has given the option for testers to use JavaScript as well. You can add more users on a LoadRunner test. Their load gens are more scalable. They allow more users with load gen than with RadView.

Right now, we tend to prefer LoadRunner.

The implementation was very straightforward. 

I'd rate the process four out of five in terms of ease of implementation. 

The entire implementation process was handled in-house. We did not use any consultants or integrators. 

I don't know this as a fact. However, I've heard that LoadRunner is pricey.

I have heard from different customers that although LoadRunner's a great product, sometimes they are looking for alternatives, since the pricing model for LoadRunner's very expensive. Sometimes customers will look at other options for testing tools due to the cost.

I'm an end-user.

I'd recommend the solution. For API testing, LoadRunner, getting the script developed in LoadRunner is very straightforward. It's not super difficult. You can get a REST API script in LoadRunner done within an hour if you have all the information and if you know the HTTP headers and stuff like that. You can get it up and running in an hour. 

I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten. I would give them a perfect score if the pricing was better.

We had to move applications from a mainframe environment to a targeted new environment. We needed to conduct load and stress testing as part of the process. We also used it to keep track of the test cases in the repository. 

We initially used LoadRunner Enterprise on a project basis. However, it exceeded our expectations, and we bought a small number of licenses. 

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. 

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise doesn't support some mainframe protocols. We had to build scripts to access the interface. 

I have been using LoadRunner Enterprise for two years. 

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is a mature product with high stability. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

We used only about 20 test cases. We didn't push beyond that. 

OpenText's support is good. 

Positive

We got an 80 percent discount for the product. It was cost-effective, but licenses tend to get expensive. 

The main challenge we resolved using the product is ensuring the functional equivalency of applications that migrated from old to new environments. 

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise has streamlined our testing process. It acted as a single source for the test cases and criteria. We could pull reports and show the management that the system is tested and can be taken live. 

The solution has helped us save time. 

Before OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, a customer did not have a repository of test cases. Hence, they needed to redevelop the previously used test cases. However, the solution helps to reuse test cases. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

The primary use case of the solution is for testing.

The most valuable feature is the Vuser protocols.

The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and by including autocorrelation capability.

I have been using the solution for one and a half years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward and usually takes a couple of hours to complete.

I give the solution a seven out of ten.

I recommend that anyone that wants to use the solution first have their requirements written out.

I use the solution in my company for any type of testing that supports LoadRunner's protocols, like your web testing or app.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that the support is good, especially the one I am getting from OpenText. The tool is easy to work with if you know what to do. It has offered me some reliability against other products, like JMeter or some other tools. It has worked better for me anyway, most of the time. The tool makes it easy to implement the scripts.

The technical support offered by the product is an area of concern where improvements are required. It all depends on how my company manages the technical support offered by the product. My company does not deal directly with Micro Focus and would rather opt for professional services that have subscribed to Micro Focus. Even though the support is good, based on my experience, when I call the support, it goes to junior people first before it gets to a more technical person. I would want to get someone straight who can just be as technical as possible so I can resolve the issue quickly.

I have been using OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise for ten years.

It is a very stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

When it comes to how the product's scalability feature has impacted our company's testing capabilities, I would say that it is not something about the product but about performance testing. All the time, your performance testing always improves the quality of the product that you are about to deploy. The reporting in the tool is quite nice. It gives you detailed graphs, making it easy for businesses to understand things.

The licensing that the tool offers allows you to increase or get more licenses as quickly as possible instead of going through a whole process. You can just go to the portal and then download whatever licenses you want. Then, off you go. I think that is a very good model that I have seen since it makes things easier for users.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

In my company, we have a contact with whom I interact so that we can escalate our issues a bit quicker, and that helps a lot. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

The product is quite easy to install and involves a straightforward process.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises version.

The solution can be deployed in two to three hours.

I am not sure about the cost savings, but not having to deploy stuff that would not work on production is a reason why it has assisted our company.

The pricing is based on the licensing you require. The prices would differ depending on the number of licenses you need. I wouldn't maybe compare it to any other tools. I rate the price as seven out of ten.

I have compared the tool with JMeter.

I don't have any challenges whatsoever with the integration.

The AI part is something that may be ahead of where I am with the OpenText LoadRunner side because what we have been looking at now is the introduction of ALM Octane instead.

There is no need to do regular technical maintenance for the solution.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

The product is very user-friendly. It is the best in the market when it comes to performance testing and load testing. It gives accurate results. No other tool can match the product’s report quality.

The solution should increase the free users limit to 500 for all Micro Focus products.

I have been using the solution since 2019.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability a ten out of ten.

The support team needs to be more coordinated.

Neutral

The solution should decrease its price.

A lot of people choose JMeter because it is free. However, JMeter is not as good as LoadRunner. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for our banking systems.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is on our own computer. We do all the development of scripting on our own computers. When we run the solution, we can run it on the cloud or in LoadRunner Enterprise.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to use and has flexibility that allows it to be used on a variety of applications.

The solution has something called True Client which makes it easy to create scripts if we have a big application with many steps. True Client is helpful when we record our scripts and we have the possibility to generate a standard script from the True Client script. I use True Client a lot.

The solution can be improved by adding more AI to the True Client feature.

The cost of the solution is high and can be improved.

I have been using the solution for over 25 years.

There are some problems with the solution's stability, so it's quite stable, but not totally stable. I give the stability an eight out of ten.

I give the scalability a ten out of ten.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to set up, record, and use. We have a department that is responsible for deployment.

I give the deployment a ten out of ten.

The implementation is completed in-house.

We found that the return on investment is around 50 percent, even if the tool is expensive. We have found bugs that would have been critical if we had pushed the application into production. The solution has made up for its cost by saving us from pushing faulty scripts into production.

I'm not sure if other similar solutions are cheaper, but Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is expensive, and could easily be 20 percent cheaper.

I give the cost a one out of ten.

I give the solution a ten out of ten. Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the best in the market, depending on what it is being used for. For API testing, we can find something cheaper. But the solution is good for that as well. For bigger applications that are Gooey-based, it's the best option.

Creating a script depends greatly on the type of application we have. If we have an API system, it will likely take less time to create a script since the developers have likely already set it up for us to use. However, if we have a lengthy application, it may take us days to create a single script.

We have between five and ten developers using the solution.

I recommend the solution, but it's expensive and only a big company could afford it. A small company wouldn't have the capacity to use the solution or the money to pay for it.

We have used it for most of our web-based application testing. We have more than 25 applications that are tested with this tool, with a load of more than 1,000 users as well. It's mostly for the enterprise applications like CRM or Citrix, as well as the Google Toolkit applications, and then there are the different protocols that this particular LoadRunner supports, like through clients or APS services. Those are where we can capture and run our tests with the LoadRunner.

Looking at the load of more of the applications and the testing needs have definitely been met. Even new users or interns can manage the solution, so there's a low learning curve.

It's a market leader and a pioneer. People enjoy working on it. It helps give them a career boost and opens up opportunities. 

What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution. With it, you could do reports and it does all the statistics, and then you can do the cross-verification or cross-analysis as well to look at comparisons. Those are fascinating.

The installation is quick.

The UI and how they show different methodologies of monitoring need improvement. We'd like to integrate data from different clouds as well as different servers. 

Integration can be tricky during the setup process. 

Technical support in not helpful or responsive. 

They have been doing a lot actually to improve the product right now. 

I've been using the solution for more than ten years. 

Most of the time, the solution is stable. If our environment is stable, the solution is reliable. 

The solution can scale. We've been using it for most users and have been increasing our servers - and they have LoadRunner installed on them. We are expanding usage. However, the cost may be a deciding factor. 

We have six people using it in our company.

Support is very poor. We've had a very frustrating experience with them. Initially, when you raise issues with them, they always send a link to some sort of document that is useless to us. After two or three follow-ups on our end, we might start getting answers. Once we escalate further, we get to the professionals, and only then will we get to a solution.

Negative

We previously used IBM's Rational Robot, as well Silk Performer.

The installation was quick, however, getting integration and getting the data flowing, that's tricky. We need to rely entirely on the Micro Focus team for that. It's not like we can do it in-house. Though we know how to install it, there are a lot of complications when we try to go through it. 

We had three people deploy the solution and two people are available for maintenance. 

We had the Micros Focus team assist us with the initial setup process. 

We have witnessed an ROI, however, when you take into account how we're costing it's likely not a helpful number to share. 

The solution is pretty expensive. I can't speak to the exact cost. I'd rate it three out of five in terms of affordability.

We did evaluate one or two other options before choosing LoadRunner. We looked at Silk Performer and another solution called Compuware. 

I am not using the latest version of the solution.

While we use on-premises deployments right now, we are starting to look into the cloud. 

I'd advise potential new users to look at their budget. If it's a larger enterprise, LoadRunner will make sense due to the big environment. If budget is a concern for a company, it may be better to look at other options. 

I'd rate the solution five out of ten.