OpenText LoadRunner Professional Reviews

It is very strong in providing load testing solutions. It provides a lot of protocol support and its reporting utility is very good. Also, the virtual user generation, controllers, and analyses are good.

It helped our organization to run successful performance testing cycles and to identify the bottlenecks of the application. It helped the clients run their application successfully and smoothly.

We would like to be able to implement the tool in such a way that load testing can also be done in the cloud.

We've used it for four years.

There was an issue that I faced with different versions of the controller and Performance Center. They should have been of the same version.

I didn't have many stability issues. The tool is very stable as you just need to check what protocols you want to test.

No issues encountered.

Customer support is good, and the turnaround time for requests is very fast. Also, they have created a forum where experts will help you without creating a ticket.

8/10

I used JMeter and Oracle Application Testing Suite as well, but according to our client’s wish we went for this solution.

It is straightforward. You just have to go through the read-me document and installation guide provided along with the software.

We did it in-house.

I would say it is true value for the money.

The license cost is much more compared to other tools available, but it will give you a complete package for load testing your application.

I evaluated JMeter and Oracle Application Testing Suite, but this proved better than those.

If you are looking for customer satisfaction, you can simply go and get it.

The feature we've found most valuable for us is the number of protocols available. We test many different commercially available tools or Java applications that prep to Zero OpenJDK, SAP, etc. But we've found that LoadRunner is the only solution that makes all protocols available in one tool. That's the number one benefit for us apart from its monitoring and analytics.

We're a testing department and LoadRunner is a business enabler. Without it, we wouldn't be able to make any money.

The look and feel of StormRunner is very modern and simple to use. If could be a huge improvement if LoadRunner could be the same.

We've been using it since 2002.

The deployment of LoadRunner is issue-free.

Stability depends on what happens during a test. Generally, LoadRunner is quite stable, but sometimes when a test is running, the system will abort it prior to completion even though the results are still accessible.

It also depends on what you want to do with LoadRunner. If you have your own application and you want to load test it, then LoadRunner works fine. But if, like us, you work with customers' applications, you may need more functionalities which LoadRunner may not have.

We're a pretty large department within our company. We have an enterprise license agreement and can simply get more licenses if we need more controllers.

Technical support is challenging. We have premier support for ALM and Performance Center, and we usually get inexperienced engineers when we contact tech support. They always ask for log files. We've been using HP tools for over 10 years and we can fix most problems ourselves. But, if we can't, we have to contact R&D, but that's too long a wait for us to get resolution of our issues.

It's got a lot of protocols that support all our business requirements, such as Java, HTTP, and Citrix. It gives us one tool that supports all this technology.

We don't have to work on another platform as we only have to learn one tool. There's a lot of information, help, and best practices available. It's a market-leading tool so there are lots of people with knowledgeable experience. Our employees are productive from day one.

Because we're a telecommunications company with millions of subscribers, we run very high volume tests for 24-48 hours. LoadRunner has been very, very stable during these tests and has gotten us results. It gives us expert diagnoses of our tests with very detailed, in-depth analyses.

We'd like for it to incorporate a tool for ordering module that would work with our proprietary in-house ordering module scripting protocol.

We have no issues with deployment.

It's very stable.

It scales very, very well.

They're very good. We have issues, we contact them, and they help us solve the issues.

Setup was very straightforward. We installed, applied the licenses, and started using it.

There is Neotys NeoLoad and SOASTA CloudTest, but LoadRunner is the best.

I would definitely recommend using LoadRunner. Use the latest two client protocols for object scripting.

The most valuable feature of LoadRunner is its ability to simulate multiple uses at the same time. That's the most important thing and the primary reason I use it.

I don't believe that there are any other good tools for performance testing. It's either use LoadRunner for performance testing or don't do performance testing at all.

We have a lot of issues right now with the Citrix client, so this should be improved.

Deployment has been fine.

We've had no issues with stability.

Scalability is not that important for LoadRunner since we don't have many people working on it at the same time.

Quite good, though sometimes it depends on who you’re dealing with. Sometimes you have bad luck and get a guy who doesn't know much about it, is new, or is in training, but most of the time technical support is fine.

It was rather easy and you can do it yourself.

For functional testing, we look for alternatives sometimes, especially for the execution part.

I don't think there's a better product for all systems.

• It allows you to create your own customized code.
• It provides an analysis report after running a test scenario.
• It supports maximum protocols.
• It's user-friendly.

It generates reports in a format that's very easy to understand for both our own internal use and other audiences. It supports Citrix and SAP protocols, which is very helpful for our clients to understand bottlenecks if there are any on their network.

It should support GWT and mobile testing, including network virtualization.

I've used it for eight years.

We didn't encounter any issues during deployment.

We haven't encountered any stability issues.

We haven't encountered any issues while scaling.

I'd say that customer service is not good.

Technical support is also not good.

I used NeoLoad, but it does not support Citrix, so we chose LoadRunner.

Initial setup was not that difficult.

We did the implementation through an in-house team.

My advice is for you to have a load generator machine that has a good configuration for handling large volumes of users.

It is very costly, but LoadRunner works perfectly. It fits our needs in the way we use it, but you should make sure your use justifies the cost.

We have only web-based services, mobile testing in scope, and the user load is maximum 1000, so we could have used NeoLoad, but there were lots of other factors in switching.

I consider all features valuable (Load Generator, VuGen, Agent Process, Analysis), but Controller is the most valuable for me.

It's helped my organization to identify performance problems in the test environment before they occur in production.

It's a very mature tool. Still, if they provided integration with a monitoring tool it would be great.

I've been using it for six years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

4/5

4/5

I previously used MS VSTS and JMETER. I would recommend LoadRunner as it is user friendly and has support for many protocols.

It was straightforward.

Implementation was easy.

Pricing is the only thing which make people think many times before purchasing this product.

No other options were evaluated.

There are actually some cool features in LoadRunner where we can have multiple users at the same time. Some of the help features in the communities, what HP has are pretty good. We have quick turnaround time for the support as well, sometimes. It is helping our application to performance test and load test. I didn't use much of the tools, and have been using these tools since eight, nine years now, so I'm more into that. I see HP is constantly improving the features of the tool.

We have the manpower, the resources. One of the thing which I realized is let's say if you have another tool which is equal or there are more comparable abilities, but it's kind of hard to get resources for those tools who are skilled. I see a bunch of resources easily available in the market for LoadRunner and HP products and I feel like this could be possible because it's kind of industry leader in the testing tools or something.

There are a lot of people using LoadRunner I can say that. The issues what we get from doing performance testing, some of the issues are not specific to tool, but because we have such a huge community in HP tools we kind of get some solutions easily from the outside world as well in the communities I guess.

The demo that I've seen today, it sounds pretty cool but it still has some limitations I guess. They thought it is only limited to web and mobile right now, and it's currently not supported for all the products of what we have in performance center. We'll all have to wait and see how they come up with full version of the features.

I would like to see the features what they are saying in the demo for StormRunner, if they can have the features of Performance Center and LoadRunner combined, put it in StormRunner, that would be awesome because StormRunner looks pretty good the way they are explaining, it's like all one stop shop where you can just manage everything from one webpage but it's not complete, it doesn't look like it's complete. If we can get all those other features included in the new one, then that would be awesome.

I believe it's good. When it first started I didn't realize it was so good, but over the years I'm seeing that it's getting more and more stable. It looks like HP is putting some efforts to make it more stable.

Scalability, I think with the previous versions maybe I was not sure but the new version which I'm seeing, and the cool features what they are showing off, I think scalability is very good, you could scale up the tool within no time.

It's on and off at times, depends on what tech guy you are working with. Some of them I find very technical strong and they were able to help, but it has to go through some processes. You have a basic layer and if it's not resolvable there, it goes to the next level so it has a process, which may take some time.

I'm involved in catering the needs of my company's performance testing for all the applications. We use a variety of HP products but our team, where I'm concerned more is HP LoadRunner. We are also upgrading into Performance Center as we speak. We are more into HP LoadRunner.

LoadRunner has easy usability right now, and it's pretty much documented on the features, and has a how-to-do use of videos, learning materials. It's easy to use once you have some basic training and you can get along easily. It will give your company return of investment I believe if you're in invest in it.

The breadth of protocol support means that you can get LoadRunner (and its sister product Performance Center) to test almost any application with useful built-in functions. The programmable scripts allow for the creation of sophisticated reliable and robust frameworks and scripts. The API potentially allows you to extend the tool to support applications that it cannot support, but how to do this is not well documented or supported.

The analysis capability is simply best of breed as it allows you to take data from any source and correlate it with your results. In other tools, analysis is more problematic and therefore a bit of a black art.

We use LoadRunner and its sister product Performance Center as two of the key pieces in our corporate tool kit along with other tools in delivering performance engineering services. Some of our customers insist on using this, and for them, it has helped administer payroll, deliver luggage in airports, and enabled them to support tax returns.

At Infuse, we have integrated such tools very early into early performance validation at the unit test level. This enables our customers to find defects early on in development, and combined with performance modelling in design, enables them to fix performance issues early and cheaply.

HP as a company has been slow to move to support modern technologies e.g. Oracle ADF. HP took a long time to support the protocol. The support could be better.

I have, as a performance engineer, been using LoadRunner since 1999, in multiple different versions. As a business we have been using it since 2002, and it features in around 80% of our performance engineering assignments along with other tools.

The tool itself is very easy to set up and install the various components. 90% of the time there are no deployment issues. The biggest issue really, is setting up the connections from the load generators to the controller component. However, these are are normally network related issues that, with the correct input from the network/infrastructure team, can quickly be resolved.

No, the application is very robust. The only time issues are experienced is when it is running for extra-long period soak tests, e.g. for 24 hours. Then, only on odd occasions, does the system sometimes experience issues with results files, which become corrupt. Usually this is because of issues during the test with the AUT causing very large results files being generated.

No, the application is scalable. Additional load testing capacity can be added quickly and easily by adding another load generator. Also, some GUI based scripting protocols such as TruClient do utilize large amounts of memory and CPU power, which needs to be planned for carefully if running tests over long periods with lots of users.

Average, to occasionally good, but no better.

HP LoadRunner technical support is adequate, with implementation issues and functional problems that may arise. However, it doesn’t include scripting support, but there is a wealth of information on numerous public forums regarding LoadRunner to assist most technical issues which helps.

As an independent vendor we use JMeter, The Grinder and Oracle Application Tool Suite’s load test module, but all of these tools don’t have the breadth of supporting protocols and so are not always suitable for our client’s applications and systems being tested. They are also sub-optimal from an analysis perspective, but do a good job.

The setup for LoadRunner is straightforward as the installations are via wizards, and this makes them quick and easy. Make sure though, that the instructions are followed as written, and be aware that virus detection software can adversely affect the installation. The most complex area is in ensuring connectivity between the load generators and the controller, which may involve firewall changes as load generator machines should be located where the users are situated or externally on the cloud. The complexity is often getting permissions from the IT support teams and explaining what you are doing rather than changing the firewall itself and setting it up. It requires good communication skills.

We implement it ourselves.

Considering the performance issues that we have found and prevented moving into production on client sites is enough to show that there is a positive ROI with the tool. This is despite the initial expense, as assets produced can be re-used on each implementation reducing the cost for subsequent releases.

The set up costs depend on the protocol type (there are standard and premium types), the number of virtual users being simulated, the terms, and the number of, load generator machines that are needed. Then there is an annual support maintenance fee that allows for free upgrade and access to the support functions.

We would evaluate all the tools on the market for a customer before making a recommendation. We do an evaluation based on the customers dynamics/culture, budget, and delivery methodology, and then offer our client a choice.

Other tools though don’t provide the breadth of support for different protocols and so this tool is limited to the applications it compatible with. It also has more basic reporting and analysis features. But then other tools are also generally cheaper.

it is a best of breed product with some minor frustrations around product support.