OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

The solution is used for scripting and debugging. 

I've found the option - remote application via LoadRunner Proxy to be the most valuable feature which played vital role in recording network traffic of mobile application. Very helpful for mobile scripting

It supports a wide range of protocols, which I don't think any other load-testing tool can offer.

It's very stable and reliable. 

The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging.

The installation process and the initial configuration could be a little easier.

We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly.

For someone that doesn't have a lot of experience with the solution, it might be challenging. Even after five years of using it, I still find it challenging. 

The solution can be quite expensive.

There is slow performance when you are opening multiple instances on one machine.

Five years.

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs, glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

For scalability, I will use LoadRunner Enterprise, not LoadRunner Professional. LoadRunner Professional is purely for scripting and debugging purposes.

Tech support is very responsive and knowledgeable

Positive

So far, I have also used JMeter. Compared to JMeter, LoadRunner is the best tool out there. As per the feedback from my peers, most of them prefer LoadRunner in terms of performance testing - executions, scripting and debugging (which provides more insight during our work)

The initial setup and configuration is pretty complex. 

I'd rate the solution a three out of five in terms of ease of setup.

It is very expensive compared to the other tools available in the market. 

I'd rate it a two out of five in terms of affordability.

I'm satisfied with the product. I'd rate it nine out of ten. 

I mainly use LoadRunner Professional for performance testing of web applications.

LoadRunner Professional's best features are that it's easy to capture scenarios and create scripts for testing, the testing runs smoothly with small resources, and it's very easy to create reports with a variety of indicators.

LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved.

I've been using LoadRunner Professional for over ten years.

LoadRunner Professional is quite stable.

LoadRunner Professional is scalable for small organizations but struggles with more than twenty or thirty agents.

We've also been using IBM Rational Performance Test but have found that LoadRunner is better than the IBM tools.

The initial setup was quite easy, and the deployment took one to two days.

The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user.

I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use. I would rate it eight out of ten.

We have several use cases for this solution. One of them is an automobile website for a huge dealership and we are doing load testing for them. We have projects in the hospitality industry, like hotel bookings. Our projects involve both API testing as well as browser-based load testing.

The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports.

The auto-correlation is much better than the different protocols that it supports.

LoadRunner is easy to use.

The debugging capability is difficult to use and should be improved. This is one area where some of the other products we use are better.

I have been using LoadRunner for five years.

We use LoadRunner on a daily basis and it is good.

It is easier to scale when you have the online, cloud option.

We probably have about 200 users and in the future, we may increase our usage.

We have been in touch with technical support but not very often. They were helpful when we did contact them.

We have used multiple testing tools like Visual Studio and NeoLoad. We have all of these as options. LoadRunner is easier to use and has support for better protocols.

Five to six engineers are required to maintain this solution.

Our in-house team deployed this solution.

NeoLoad was one of the options that we considered, but we ultimately went with LoadRunner.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for performance testing and performance tuning.

I like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good.

Pricing should be lowered on the solution. Right now it's quite expensive.

The solution uses a lot of memory and then it dies. It's difficult to work with the solution sometimes when you run a scenario it dies. They need to make the solution lighter somehow.

If the correlation can be adjusted so that it's a dynamic correlation, it could be a little bit better and it would help a lot of users.

I've been using the solution for ten years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. I don't see a problem with scaling, because you can schedule multiple instances.

Technical support has been good so far.

We've basically used LoadRunner since the beginning; we find it more user-friendly than other tools.

The initial setup is easy. It's not difficult.

I handled the implementation myself. How log deployment takes depends on the application. It could take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks.

We started using the solution when it was version 8.2 and now we are on version 10.6. We use the on-premises deployment model. 

I would recommend the solution to others. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for a variety of cases; the use case depends on the application.

The load testing, reporting, and scripting features are all valuable features.

The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive.

The solution should offer more monitoring features.

The stability of the solution is good.

The scalability is good.

Technical support is fine.

I'm quite experienced with the solution, so I haven't had any issues with the initial setup.

There's the licensing fee, and then additional fees on top of that as well.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is to do testing for banks and financial institutions. 

At the moment I like to use the TruClient port, add them and create other versions of TruClient, because TruClient is usually too big to handle heavy loads, so you need to recreate a vamp version for whatever you will need. 

Sometimes I have problems when I want to record a script if the application is a little special, like the login part. I think the TruClient works well and they are developing new things there all the time. So it's getting better. I would like to see an easier way to move things from SoapUI to the same addressed services and postman or something like that. Because the developers will use the other products and then the website and then load them at no cost. So if it was just one step to move from one system to another it would be a great improvement.

The solution is quite stable. I've seen a few bugs of course - they will always be there. That's not a big deal and I just work around it. 

I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients. It eats lots of memory, so usually, I have two or three low generators while I have the one controller. We have had some problems with when we are using a BPM system. In the beginning, it was quite difficult when we changed to this other system and we wanted to connect to the home computer. 

We have about 12 users, mostly testers, working on the solution currently. Then we have two people working in our performance center. 

The technical support is good. Whenever we had a problem, they solved it. 

The initial setup was quite straightforward and it's quite easy to install the standard version. Everything takes less than an hour.

My advice to others would be to look into the application differently. In the next version, I would like to see an easier way to create and use TruClient for development and to move it to another version. They already have this function, but it is not very user-friendly. You cannot do a correlation of things now, because it is on a higher level now. So you have to do a lot of work. 

My rating for this solution is nine out of ten. I've used it a lot, so I guess it's possible to make things better, but it's been around for a while, so I think it's very good.

Our primary use case of this solution is for performance testing and load testing.

The solution improves our organization because we can use it for recording scripts, enhancing the scripts and for running test revisions. We can therefore preform test revisions and do analysis.

What I really like about this solution, is the user-friendly interface and the loading and repair properties.

Currently the solution doesn't have recording options or sometimes we're not be able to see the recording options. So that needs to improve. I also think the solution should have more screen compatibility, even if you're using a different operating system like Windows 10, Windows 8 or Windows 8.1. Sometimes we find that there is a difference between the desktop screen and the laptop screen. So, it should be compatible for both screens.

The solution is stable and the only compatibility issues lie within the screens. I think there should be an improvement to the compatibility to both laptop and desktop screens. Sometimes we are not be able to click on some of the buttons due to the screen mismatching and compatibility issues. 

We have about 200 users and the scalability is good so far. We don't plan to increase our usage so I am not sure how scalable it will be with more users.

We get really good support from the support team.

The initial setup and installation of the software were very easy and straightforward. 

LoadRunner has a variety of options and different protocols that will support all types of applications categories like web application, monitor and any internal applications or desktop applications. The customization protocol also is user-friendly and if I have to rate the solution, I will give it a nine out of ten. In the next version I would like to see specific protocols when I want to do performance settings for any desktop clients. 

We use this solution for performance testing, and to identify bottlenecks.

This solution has helped us to eliminate software performance risk before going live.

The most valuable feature of this solution is VuGen, the Virtual User Generator. The scripting can be done easily.

The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period.

The price of this solution should be cheaper.