OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) Reviews

It's the most flexible and best solution for our people who are both offshore and onshore because of the reporting capabilities. When we hire new employees, we look for people who have used this tool for testing experience.

It's allowed us to really focus on load testing and to get some results that we've reported to our business managers.

Another thing we really like is that it takes advantage of our monitoring tools when we're performance testing. They work well together.

The migration from LoadRunner to Performance Center was not as smooth as I would have liked. Some of it was not the tool but us, but it still could have been smoother and taken a little bit less time.

We started off with LoadRunner and we've been using that for probably a year, and then we just recently converted over to the Performance Center, which is their staff solution, in the last year.

We've had no issues with deployment, other than the initial migration.

It's stable now.

For situations in which we've had to scale up a little bit, they've been there to help us. We didn't have any trouble scaling.

I have not been as impressed as with their other products. They do respond, they do have the knowledge to do this but it hasn't been the same as what I've seen with other products. A little more challenging.

We were challenged in out setup, making it more complex, because we didn't us HP cloud and were using AWS instead. Some of the connections weren't set up properly.

Make sure you figure out what you want before you buy. Determine how many and what types of licenses you need.

Although there may be other products out there that do an amazing job, they don't necessarily have the skill set in the industry that makes it worth me going out there and looking at them.

During implementation, make sure you're talking about a cloud solution. You may be implementing in multiple areas, so planning is very important.

The most valuable feature is the enterprise card. It allows us to use our central software for all our testers who are located worldwide.

It's a rather complex product. There are always things that could be better, such as new protocols that allow for more efficient testing and sharing of data across our teams.

It needs to be able to inform us what our current situation is, that is, what version we're on, etc. This is important because we do reinstalls and upgrades once a year, so that information is still valid for us each time we do that.

We have been using it for six years.

The stability is pretty good.

It's the right size for us right now for our purposes and we will not grow out of it any time soon. So scalability is not relevant at this time.

When you initially file a support case, it's difficult because they ask you many technical question to assess the problem. This takes a long time. I think there should be a better way for HP to know what the situation is so that you don't have to think about it for half a day.

The initial setup was OK, wasn't too complex.

We worked out the complexities ourselves.

I've looked, but I haven't found any alternatives -- including web-based applications -- that are better than Performance Center.

It's a very capable solution and I highly recommend it.

For us, the features we value and use the most are web and HTTP support. It also has protocols that are easy to use, such as mainframe communication, and provides the ability to schedule functionalities.

For example, we've scheduled a week of performance testing, and when it runs, it does so without breaking. It then provides the resources available and analysis of the results of tests based on monitoring preferences.

It's our main tool for performance testing.

It needs integration with open-source tools. It should also have version control of scripts, SDI, or GitHub. I'd also like to see some kind of EDI integration and open-source support.

It's deployed well for us.

We're using version 11.5 right now and it's OK. The latest version is 12.5, and we need to upgrade ASAP. The previous versions were pretty unstable, but that's been fixed now.

It is very scalable.

The first-level guys are OK, but when you get to the R&D guys in third-level support, they're excellent. But our company policy requires us to go though our IT department as they're pretty experienced with Performance Center. But this takes a long time.

You should be aware of what you want to test. Could you settle for a less pricey solution? It's a very expensive tool, and it has a lot of features you may not need.

It's an expensive tool, so you need to be prepared to invest in training your people and to have patience as they will need to use it a lot to become adept at it.

The most valuable features to us are--

• Ease of uploading the scripts, and
• Script maintenance.

• Multiple users from different locations can login.
• We can view tests at run time, which has helped us to execute tests from different time zones.

Sometimes the Book Time Slot option hangs if I cancel any test or time slot. Also, if the results file gets corrupted, then we need to contact HP to get the raw results.

• Standalone PC – six years
• SaaS PC – two years

We encountered no issues when deploying.

We've had no issues with stability.

We've scaled without issue.

Customer service is excellent.

Technical support is excellent.

I have used Borland SilkTest, JMeter and LoadUI. JMeter and LoadUI have limitations in terms of the protocols. SilkTest is not as user friendly as Performance Center.

It was not complex, but I needed to consult HP support a couple of times for clarification and for help in registering the load injectors.

We did it in-house.

If the organization is going to test multiple protocols like Ajax, TruClient, Citrix, and SAP frequently, then there is definitely a high ROI in using this tool. If it's only the HTTP protocol being used, then other less expensive tools will be sufficient.

It is quite expensive.

The main features are the ability to customize the product configuration and the customization to adapt with the customer environment. Additionally, the product flexibility, and stability are also valuable.

We are able to manage and monitor our entire environment. We're also able to perform capacity management, performance management, and configuration management.

I've used it for around seven years.

There are many issues that require day-to-day maintenance. The issues vary from customer to customer, and I can’t list all the issues as it becomes business as usual.

It's OK.

It's OK.

We chose this solution because it's very flexible, scalable, and allows customization in a wide range of areas.

I've implemented it both ways, and my advice is to get the vendor to help you design a detailed plan and manage that plan.

• It helps you to build custom design application simulation models that enable the performance test engineer to assess an enterprise, multi-tier, heavily-distributed, high-traffic application on how the application for that particular release meets its non-functional test requirements and SLA thresholds, which are key business-transaction response times.
• It tell you your applications' CPU computational power usages under various conditions such as stress, volume, and scalability.
• Its distributed nature will let you choose load generators that can be geographically located anywhere, thus traffic simulations from multiple locations make it possible to create a real production scenario.
• The true advantage of Performance Center is the ability to enable multiple engineers to do design and validate their script locally, but to execute them globally by using global resources spread across an organization.
• The other advantage is the integration with HP SiteScope which lets you to perform deep-dive monitoring of your application under test during your test execution for live health analysis using several readily available monitoring templates.

Some of the key-business and mission-critical applications released earlier into production were having issues in terms of key business transactions running slowly, which were impacting the end-user experience. The slow business transactions were causing grief to several customers, which eventually led to customers being moved onto different competitor products, causing revenue loss. There was increased downtime of applications in production due to poor application performance.

With the help of HP Performance Center and LoadRunner, we were able to critically evaluate the applications performance and stability, and were assured that each application that was released into production was performing better and meeting all SLAs, including transactional response times and system and platform resource utilization.

We have received excellent feedback in one specific instance where a customer came directly to me, and said that they are seeing much better transactional response times, which helped them serve customers faster, and now they are seeing their customers coming back.

Integration with other APM tools like DynaTrace or AppDynamics is a little tedious. Plus, support around cloud solutions and architectures needed to be improved.

I have used several versions of this product for over five years, alongside HP LoadRunner.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

It's excellent.

It's excellent.

As a person who has been in the performance engineering field for several years, I have used several similar products. However, Performance Center and LoadRunner offer unbeatable support across different protocols, including SAP and AJAX true client.

Also, its ease of use in designing and reusable custom automated performance frameworks is unbeatable. Its support in designing frameworks and scripts for load testing message queues, web, and web-service protocols are quite remarkable.

It offers different types of users for people who come from different programming backgrounds i.e. if you are predominantly a C programmer, you can write a lot of custom API’s using C, and similarly, if you come from Java programming you can use your Java skills in custom API implementation.

It was straightforward.

In-house.

It can lead to the generation of a very high ROI if you have the right people with the right expertise of the tool set.

It is a bit highly priced. However, better products with a better quality can come with a good price.

It is definitely one of the best products available on the market. Definitely programming knowledge around C programming would be greatly advantageous.

• Ability to execute performance tests
• Live-screen display of test load runs
• Generation of performance test reports
• Live server-side performance metrics

It has contributed greatly to the performance/stress testing of our application prior to going live and deployment. It gives our project teams a level of comfort and a baseline idea of how the performance of our application will be after going into production.

The UI should be improved in the next version.

Only very rarely does it do so, but there have been issues with its host going into non-operational status.

The level of support from HP is average.

I have not used any alternative to this product.

Initial set-up of the product was a little bit complex, and setting up the servers was little difficult.

We used a vendor team.

ROI is excellent.

It's a little expensive. The pricing is based on on the number of virtual user licenses.

I would say that it is a great investment for your organization. Going forward, HP is going to implement many impressive new features in this software.

We can centralize and execute various performance tests for business units across the globe.

We are able to run performance tests for Asia, EU, and the US from a centralized controller where each team can come together in their respective time zones, build and run the tests, as a test manager can review, and suggest various improvements along with infrastructure teams.

It's expensive, so could be cheaper. Also, it should have third-party tool integration.

I've used it for two years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

We switched due to common licences.

It was straightforward.

It's expensive, but useful if the usage is across the globe; others are pay-as-you-go type license which can be used to minimize the costs.