OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Reviews

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.

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 use Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise for load testing and stress testing. We also use it for running performance schedulers during specific times. We also use the solution to determine testing trends. We're using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise less for TruClient because the TruClient protocol takes up a lot of memory.

What I like most in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the comparison between two different exhibitions which gives value to my company. I also like that the solution is user-friendly, especially in terms of making specific changes. For example, in the past, you can't see the changes when you upload scripts into the Performance Center, but now, it has that visibility, so whenever you want, you can change the script in the Performance Center.

I also like that Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the only tool you can utilize for all your needs, even for different protocols and scripting. The solution also has the latest features, for example, networkability, where it can, within the UI, follow the waterfall model. You can use the insights in the Performance Center of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise to address or test URLs that usually take up much time.

A room for improvement in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is that it should take multiple exhibitions for a particular scenario and have automatic trending for that. This will be a very useful feature that lets users look into how many exhibitions happened for the scenario and their performance, and you should be able to see the data within the Performance Center dashboard.

For example, there's one scenario I'm focusing on multiple times in a month, and if I check five times, there's no way for me to see the trend and find out how it went with those five exhibitions. It would be great if the Performance Center has a view of all five exhibitions, particularly transaction by transaction, and how they happened. If Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise shows you the time trends, information about one exhibition to another, and how each performed, it'll be an immense feature, and that should be visible to every user.

Reporting should be simpler in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. If I did a scenario with one exhibition now, and I did that scenario again, then I should be able to schedule that scenario for the exhibition, and if that scenario is executed multiple times, there should be the option to turn it into a single view that shows you all the transactions, how the performance was, what the trend graph is for a particular time, etc.

The report from Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise would show you the difference between two exhibitions, if I did one today at 12:00 PM and another at 12:00 PM tomorrow, but if you want to see the difference between three or more exhibitions, the solution doesn't have that option. To see the difference, you'll need to do more work in terms of uploading files and doing the comparisons manually, and this should be improved.

An added feature I'd like to see in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is a converter. I'd also like a performance file extraction feature in the scripting alone. For example, if I'm using the JMX file, I should be able to convert it within the solution, same with other files such as the HAR and PCAP files. Whatever performance file is there, if I can extract it and make a script, that would be a very valuable addition to Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. Another example is if you're not able to record the script in the solution, if there is that option with a PCAP or HAR file, for example, a converter, that will add some value. There's a conversion for the HAR file, but with the PCAP file, I'm not so sure.

I've been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise for three years now.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is a very stable solution. My company only had to contact the Micro Focus team twice when there was an issue related to tailor-made requirements within my organization, but it wasn't because of a Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise feature, and other than that, I didn't see any issues regarding its stability.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is a scalable solution.

The technical support team for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is very responsive. My company contacted support about an issue that was related to requirements tailored to my organization and the team helped in resolving the issue and making the solution stable.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise has a very responsive technical support team that was upfront in informing my team when it's feasible to set up a meeting, and when the issue needs to be redirected to another person who's knowledgeable about it.

On a scale of one to five, I would rate the Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise technical support team four out of five.

Before Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, we used Apache JMeter which was the only other option because it's an open-source tool. It was deployed on-premises and not on the cloud.

We also used the normal version of the Performance Center before Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise which was two years prior and we had to install the Performance Center on-premises and set up load generators and load controllers. The Enterprise version we've been using for the past three years.

The main differences between Apache JMeter, the Performance Center, and Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise are the usability and insights given by the last two solutions. Both the Performance Center and Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise give more insights, and they also offer more automation versus Apache JMeter.

With Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise and the Performance Center, users can leverage a quick exhibition after setting up the scenario, doing quick checks, and creating reports, but in Apache JMeter, users have to manually set up, observe, and do the reports.

There are more features in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise as well as it's cloud-based versus Apache JMeter which is only a plug-in, so we have to do everything manually in Apache JMeter.

In terms of how easy or complex setting up Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is, I'm not the right person to ask because a different team handles the setup in my company. The solution is set up on the cloud, on-demand, and requires load generators or controllers, but I didn't take part in setting it up. I'm just an end-user that utilizes Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise.

As I'm an end-user of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise and not involved in its licensing, I don't have information on how much it costs.

I evaluated Apache JMeter before using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise.

In terms of the number of resources using Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, I'm in a large organization, and in the beginning, there were ten resources. Nowadays, with the solution being tailor-made for my company, twenty-five to thirty resources belonging to different teams use Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise.

The solution is used every day as my company can't live without performance testing.

I'm rating Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise nine out of ten because it still has some room for improvement.

My company is a customer of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise.

The product is good, and the concept is good as well.

Right now, we are in research mode, and we are yet to adopt the solution. The installation has not been straightforward, and we have had so many problems. We have had to re-install, try to install on a different machine, etc. We have not been able to launch the LRE server itself yet.

It's not a consistent solution. Sometimes, it's executes well, and at other times, graphics will not show up, or we'll need to restart the services, for example.

If I change my host controller, then my graphical report goes missing. I'd like to see this improved so that the graphical report is brought to the analysis. Only the LRE server is codable to give the HTML report.

Also, instead of uploading the script, it would be good to have a check-in/checkout option. At present, because the script is uploaded, the version control is missing. Version control sessions would be nice to have as well.

We have been using OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise for almost four to five months.

We need some guidance from OpenText but are not able to directly contact them because we purchased the license via SAP. However, I think that the technical support team should be very proactive.

We have been using LoadRunner Professional for a long time. We are looking into switching to LRE because it's centralized and has so many good features.

The installation is very problematic and not that straightforward. We have had so many problems.

We purchased the license via SAP.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise at six.

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.

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.

Performance testing is an integral part of the testing life cycle. It determines whether the application being rolled out for end-users is in line with our expectations. It contributes quite well.

Initially, we had a completely on-premises implementation of LoadRunner. In 2018, we moved to cloud. The load generators are still internal, but the rest of the components sit in the Micro Focus cloud environment as a SaaS enterprise solution.

It's quite versatile. As a company, we have applications that span across different platforms and technologies, including legacy. We've been using it for applications on mainframes and with the latest technologies as well. We are able to attain our requirements from a performance testing standpoint. It helps us to be confident and to be aware of where issues are before we release a product to a wider audience.

When you have that scalability, it helps in performing end-to-end testing seamlessly. Our organization has applications that span multiple applications and technologies, to complete a single business process. That type of scalability helps us to achieve our performance testing objectives.

It has definitely helped us to identify the performance bottlenecks. Whenever we get into the procurement of other applications, we consider the historical performance KPIs. That really helps us to define those optimum KPIs with respect to other vendors.

In terms of efficiency, certain features have been introduced that were quite complementary and have really helped us with our delivery.

We have a centralized delivery team and we are able to meet enterprise requirements, which include different types of protocols that are involved, including scripting. The technology supports that and enables us to have a wider range of testing. Enterprise-level testing is something that we are satisfied with.

LoadRunner helps to facilitate sharing of best practices and skills. That's the way we expect any enterprise tool to work. It helps us to follow best practices and share them with other teams as well. It's quite important to have that consistency in terms of the quality of deliverables. It plays a key role. It enables us to have that benchmarking in terms of quality and is one of the crucial requirements for us.

The cross-project reporting and business views are among the valuable features because a huge platform can have multiple projects that are being executed in parallel. In that scenario, the reporting provides a holistic view for the stakeholders.

It would be good if we could look forward at the future technology needs we have. I would like to see Micro Focus provide more customer awareness around how LoadRunner can fulfill requirements with Big Data use cases, for example, where you do performance testing at the scale of data lakes. That also applies to when we need to deal with applications that are adopting the latest technologies, where our company doesn't have a footprint. It would help us to have a better view and be prepared to address those requirements efficiently.

The Micro Focus team has done a good job of introducing us to product owners and product managers, and in talking about the upcoming roadmap and features of the tool. That's been quite good. But when it comes to technologies our company has yet to adopt, I would like to see an indication from Micro Focus of how one does performance testing and what kinds of challenges can we foresee. Those kinds of studies would really help us.

We've been using LoadRunner since 2012.

The current licensing model is something that offers us flexibility, compared to what we had earlier. That's something which is really beneficial.

Any plans to increase our usage of LoadRunner depend on the business demand. Our company depends on a number of IT applications for which implementation is planned and are in scope for performance testing. We will carve out a plan for introducing performance testing of them.

Penetration and performance testing have increased over time and we are growing well. For applications that are already in the maintenance phase, depending on the volume of change that is introduced into them and how critical they are, we introduce performance testing. However, the number of custom applications is quite limited within our company.

So far, Micro Focus technical support has been smooth.

The solution supports multiple protocols such as open source, VuGen, TruWeb, TruClient, and SAP. A few years ago, we also wanted support for IoT. That did not exist. That's something we requested and the product team added it to the roadmap.

Since the early days, we were with HP Performance Center, and then with Micro Focus LoadRunner. We have stuck with the same supplier and product.

We have become very accustomed to the product, using it as long as we have. We have never come across any kind of difficulty and we have received support from the vendor whenever we have required help.

Our migration to LoadRunner Cloud happened in 2018, and took approximately six months. Our company was being cautious because we wanted to ensure business continuity, so we went for a phased project migration approach.

We went with that approach because there were multiple aspects that needed to be taken care of, from a security standpoint. We had to get required clearances because we needed to open certain ports and firewalls. That took some time. Once that was cleared, we did a proof of concept and quickly started moving projects in a phased manner, and we haven't seen many difficulties since then.

The contract that we had with Micro Focus was a bit complex, but now it's much simpler. As a customer, I have clarity about it. That is something that helps us to serve the business better.

It's a tool that really helps you when you have a very varied landscape and you have technologies and platforms and infrastructure which include legacy and new ones, with a mix of SaaS. LoadRunner has the ability to support different protocols and that serves the purpose. It's a one-stop solution.

We wanted to integrate LoadRunner reports to a time-series database, an open-source tool like Grafana. We learned a lot from that integration. The integration of the solution into a CI pipeline is something that we haven't explored widely, but it's an area we are looking forward to investing in soon. We are exploring more in terms of the integration capabilities of LoadRunner with other tools.

Performance testing is a specialized skill and we don't have too many using the solution, but we do have a couple of professionals who have been doing performance testing for more than 15 years. The rest have been into performance testing for the last seven to eight years, with exposure to different protocols and technologies. We are aiming to scale up and cross-train them in multiple protocols so that we can reach some of our goals without any hindrance this year. We would like to have less dependency, in terms of expertise, on specific technologies and protocols.

I am a managed service provider, a reseller, and a consultant. In other words, I am a total geek. 

I added a whole bunch of features and changes three or four years, but I don't know if they followed my recommendations; however, they did implement some changes that I suggested.

There's an onsite version and there's a cloud version. We typically don't want an enterprise type version because the clients that we work with are fairly large. The last place we used this solution employed 150,000 people.

We have clients that have as few as 10 employees, and other clients that have thousands of employees. I would say the mid-sized businesses that we work with are between 250 and 700 people.

It's all Citrix. We do load balance. We do load testing for Citrix deployments to determine whether or not we're going to get what we expected.

The ability to run long packages for extended periods of time, and actually mimic end users. That's really what we use it for.

We use it for validation. When you put together a system that has two to three thousand people on it, you need to be able to test it. To do that, you need a product that allows you to cast two to three thousand users on a system.

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Is very user-friendly.

The reporting has room for improvement.

I have been using this solution, on and off, for roughly six to seven years. 

In the last 12 months, I don't think I've actually loaded it up, but I have had my PS team load it up several times.

It's a stable solution. I'd give OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise a 4.5 out of 5 on stability.

We never experienced any bugs or glitches; those are typically in the actual loads that you're running, but that's not their fault, that's your fault.

Scalability-wise, I have not had any problems. It's gone as high as I needed it to go. There are issues when supporting two to three thousand users. I don't ever go any higher than that.

A typical test is between roughly 150 and 250 users, and the most I've ever gotten is 3000. The scalability has been there for what I needed it to do. I really can't speak outside of that realm.

I have never called their technical support, but their online documentation is pretty good.

We deployed three different solutions. One of them was free from VMware and the other one was Login PSI. We didn't really switch, it's just different feature sets we're looking for or methodology we want to use; whether or not the client wants to spend a hundred grand upfront.

For me, the initial setup is straightforward — I've done it a few times now.

The price is okay. You're able to buy it, as opposed to paying for a full year. You can just on-demand purchase it for your users for a day or two, which is nice in an MSP business like mine. If I need to use it for separate clients, I don't have to have a huge layout of capital upfront.

Make sure you know what your use case is before you buy it.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine. It's very good at doing what it needs to do. I think that the reporting needs a little bit of work, but that's pretty much it. I think every reporting system needs a little bit of work, so take that with a grain of salt.