OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) Reviews

We use the solution for load testing. 

The executive management is more confident when they go for production. They know that the performance issues are already addressed. 

The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation. 

The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays. 

I have been using the product for three to four years. 

The solution is stable. 

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise's pricing is reasonable. 

OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise has helped us save time by five to ten percent. The tool has helped us improve product quality. 

We use the TruClient feature, and it has helped us reduce scripting. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

The solution is a performance-assessing tool. It supports a myriad of protocols. That is a big advantage of LoadRunner.

LoadRunner has helped in projects where we needed to use different protocols. It's also for clients who had already bought LoadRunner before and wanted to make use of it. 

It works on Citrix and desktop applications. There are a lot of protocols that LoadRunner will be able to handle. It is a great tool in that sense since it has a wide range of options.

The autocorrelation feature is quite helpful. With it, we can dynamically handle new sessions or non-new variables. 

It is a good and stable tool. 

The licensing is not cheap. However, it the client has specific requirements LoadRunner, will likely meet their application expectations very well.

The organizational aspects could be better.  

There should be more integration with more open-source platforms. It would be great if it could integrate with GitLab, for example. 

More features could be added to make it more robust. 

I've used the solution for around four years. I've used the solution on various projects.

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. It gets good support from Micro Focus teams. I'd rate the stability 8.5 to nine out of ten in terms of reliability. 

It's a highly scalable tool. There are processes that can be added and can scale vertically and horizontally. 

It's a fairly straightforward setup. I'd rate it seven out of ten. It's a plug-and-play tool. There is a bit of a learner curve, however. You could also do some workarounds if you need to, however, that might make it more complex to set up. 

ROI is on a case-by-case basis. Likely there would be an ROI if an organization is heavily into LoadRunner. For example, if they had 100,000 or 200,000 users accessing the application at once where peak performance would be important.  

There's an Enterprise Professional and Cloud option as well. The cloud option is maybe called StormRunner. However, most clients choose on-premises deployments. I use the professional version.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten as it is more expensive. 

There is a free trial for up to 50 users that companies should try.

I'm a consultant. 

I've used LoadRunner XP versions and the latest LoadRunner, the 2021 R1 version.

I would advise new users to start with the professional versions. Then, if you have a requirement for an Enterprise version, you can go ahead and go to the Enterprise version. There is a free trial for 50 users. It's a good idea to take advantage of that. That way, you can try it out and see if LoadRunner's the better tool for you, for your organization, and you can look at pricing to see if it is a good match. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

My customers use it for performance testing. It is the ultimate tool for it.

It has features for recording. The best feature with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is that there is very little bottleneck or overhead issues. With LoadRunner, you can spawn 2000 contributions for one machine.

The pricing model, selling model, and business model need to be adjusted. For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost.

Technical support also needs to be improved.

Everyone wants to make the testing phase easy, and so, the recording feature needs to be more stable for every app and every command application. Right now, the call language is C, and it would be better if it were changed to another language such as JavaScript.

I've been using this solution for almost 20 years.

It's stable, but in the newest version, it takes about six months till we can guarantee the stability.

My customers have turned to Micro Focus' technical support, but they have mostly not been able to solve the problems. When the case has to do with the setup, the technical support has been useless. So, I would give them a three out of ten.

Negative

I have used several tools, but Micro Focus is the best. We can get things done in a very short period of time. If we used an open source tool, then we would need more time.

The initial deployment is quite simple. It's not complex and can be done in one or two days.

LoadRunner Professional is easy to maintain.

The licensing model is complex. You have to pick up the protocol and the number of concurrent users, and then select the level of concurrent users. For example, there would be one price for 100 to 500 users and another for 500 to 2000 users. If you choose two protocols, then you will have to pay twice the amount depending on the number of concurrent users.

I recommend LoadRunner to everyone because they have a community with 50 concurrent users. Micro Focus has done standard testing and guarantees the use of LoadRunner in this case. With an open source tool, however, there is no guarantee, and you would be using it at your own risk.

The purpose of using a tool like this is to reduce application performance risk. So, using a tool at your own risk to reduce the risk is not reasonable. Therefore, I recommend using LoadRunner and rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

I primarily use LoadRunner Professional to load test applications in a manufacturing environment. 

LoadRunner Professional allowed us to load test potential new payroll solutions that would be implemented throughout the entire organization so that we knew which was best suited to performing well under pressure. 

LoadRunner Professional's most valuable features are the easy setup, the auto-correlation feature, the high number of protocols, the analysis, and the reporting.

Micro Focus has two separate products for web and mobile applications, which means you have to invest in both. LoadRunner Professional does have a mobile protocol, but it works on very few applications. Merging the two products would be a big improvement, especially if Micro Focus also ensures the on-prem and cloud solutions have the same features. They're also not great with communication, including about important things like new rollouts. 

I've been using LoadRunner Professional for five to six years.

LoadRunner Professional's performance has been good, and we've had no issues with stability.

LoadRunner Professional's technical support is really good - they respond promptly and give super support. They also have a nice, robust knowledge bank, so if there are any issues, you can usually find help on the support site or via the community.

The ease of LoadRunner Professional's setup process is one of its strengths - it's straightforward and takes a day or two to deploy.

We used a vendor team.

We've got quite a good ROI from LoadRunner Professional, as it has reduced our downtime, raised our response time, and allowed us to test the new payroll system for the entire organization. However, the ROI is lower than it could be as we only use LoadRunner sparingly to avoid higher costs.

LoadRunner Professional's licensing costs are on the higher side, apart from the Community Edition. The Community Edition is free but limited to fifty users; after that, you have to pay for extra users.

I would recommend LoadRunner Professional as a helpful, user-friendly tool with a huge knowledge base. The only thing to bear in mind is the higher cost. I would give LoadRunner Professional a rating of eight out of ten.

Multiple protocols are available in LoadRunner, so we can choose one based on our requirements. If it is a single protocol, we have to start recording the scripting and checking whether you can record through LoadRunner. Once the recording is done, we have to do scripting and execution. We have three people working on various applications for the same client. We are working simultaneously and sharing our work to finish our content.

I like LoadRunner's ability to use multiple protocols. That's one of the greatest features along with the ability to test service calls between the app and server. 

Sometimes, we aren't able to see an accurate page view while replying and executing the script. When you are navigating the application side by side, it needs to be displayed on a random viewer. Sometimes we will get a few applications, and we won't get others.

I have been using LoadRunner for my entire career, so it's been almost four years. 

LoadRunner is standalone. It doesn't rely on anything. There are three components. We are using a controller and analysis instead of a controller. We design a script and run it in the controller. In analysis, we do the reporting and analysis, but instead of a controller, we have the option called performance center, where we can run the script like the controller. However, the controller is a standard Windows-based application. If you choose the performance center, any number of people can access it at the same time.

I have used JMeter and NeoLoad. I switched to LoadRunner because the client preferred it. If they have a budget and need to see clear views, we will opt for LoadRunner. However, if they lack funds, they can use an open-source tool like JMeter. I also have more experience with LoadRunner, so I would prefer to use that. We can write any number of lines of code manually to make the script work.

LoadRunner is a little more expensive than NeoLoad, but LoadRunner's interface is more user-friendly. 

Whenever a client wants to improve their application, they will procure the licenses. It's simple to install. it will take hardly 20 to 30 minutes of time to install and we will get 50 user licenses free of cost.

It only takes 30 minutes to deploy on our application. It's on a private cloud that we use whenever we're working on a particular project. One person is enough to install it.

LoadRunner is a little more expensive than other solutions, but there are no hidden costs. 

I rate LoadRunner nine out of 10. You can get 50 users for free before you decide to procure the license, but run the script for multiple users.

We use OpenText LoadRunner Professional in demand every time there is a requirement for notice, and that's when we use it.

The ability to have a load testing tool and conduct your load testing maybe before some major implementations leads to some cost saving in the long run because it avoids a lot of related issues.

OpenText LoadRunner Professional covers a number of protocols. It uses high-level languages like Java, CVC, and CCL. The main feature that is quite impressive is its ability to install however you want and just use that or whenever you want the availability of load generators.

The pricing could be lower. Moreover, there could be improvements in the auto-generated support reports, such as making it easier to work on the Word format reports if you want to add your customizations.

I have been working with OpenText LoadRunner Professional for more than ten years.

The stability of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is excellent. I would rate it a nine out of ten as it is a rock-solid solution with no issues.

OpenText LoadRunner Professional is very scalable. I would rate its scalability an eight out of ten because it allows for flexible installation and use of load generators.

OpenText technical support is very helpful, depending on the structure of how you get your support, whether directly from OpenText or via other suppliers. So far, the support has been good, and we have built some nice relationships with the support team. I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

Positive

Before OpenText LoadRunner Professional, I did some comparisons between LoadRunner, JMeter, and Free Performer. In terms of ease of use, support, and overall functionality, LoadRunner became the better solution.

The initial setup of OpenText LoadRunner Professional was quite easy and not difficult at all. It took us at most one hour to deploy it.

I am the one who does the installation and any troubleshooting or maintenance related to OpenText LoadRunner Professional. When I have issues, I log a call with the OpenText support team.

The long-term use of LoadRunner Professional has led to some cost savings by avoiding a lot of load-related issues.

After purchasing OpenText LoadRunner, you only pay for the specific protocols you want to use. There are extra expenses depending on the licenses or specific protocols you need.

We evaluated LoadRunner, JMeter, and Free Performer before choosing OpenText LoadRunner Professional.

I would recommend OpenText LoadRunner Professional for performance testing needs because it is easy to implement, covers a wide range of protocols, and integrates well with other tools. The pricing, however, could be improved.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We've been using Micro Focus LoadRunner for load testing to simulate the load and applications for microservices and Salesforce UI applications.

 We like LoadRunner's controller and analysis features.

Improvement wise, the pipeline should be enabled. It should be embedded as part of the tool itself rather than going with third-party tools.

Monitoring should be more effective as well.

I've been using this solution for the last 17 years.

I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional's stability at eight out of ten.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate the scalability at seven.

I would technical support at eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is not straightforward. It should be enabled with some APM tools so that we don't have to rely on third-party tools.

Our ROI is okay, considering that it is a one-time effort.

When you compare the cost of other tools such as NeoLoad and LoadNinja, the cost of LoadRunner is on the expensive side. As a result, we are currently considering going with NeoLoad.

We are evaluating Tricentis NeoLoad and will probably go with it because it has additional features and is less expensive.

Overall, I would rate LoadRunner at seven out of ten.

I use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional primarily for performance testing.

It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it.

They are immediately upgrading and providing the patch in this manner. It's good.

The drawback is that it is very expensive.

It is already a well-known tool with a vast number of features. The only issue is what they are actually making up for the asking rate.  A lot of people are unable to pay that much money in the industry.

I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support.

The price is too expensive.

I've been using Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional for the last ten years and LoadRunner exclusively for the last twenty.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is 100 percent stable.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is 100 percent scalable.

We have 500 users in our organization.

I may use it 12 to 15 times per year.

I would rate the technical support a one out of five.

The technical support is very bad.

They are not providing any technical support, even though we have a support license. They have only hired people with zero knowledge.

They are completely unresponsive.

If I run into any problems or have any issues, I will resolve them only by myself. I will not rely on any technical support. If I raise a support ticket, they will actually require my setting for more than a month or two to solve a very simple problem.

Negative

I am new to this company. I only use the company website and the CS portal. Other than that, I do not use any of the other products.

I work in performance testing and I am currently using RadView or WebLOAD, as well as a Micro Focus LoadRunner and Silk Performer. At the same time, I used a couple of IBM products, including SLAMD and the rational performance tester. Aside from that, I use a variety of other products such as JMeter and others.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I would rate the initial setup a five out of five.

Pricing depends on our choices because it depends on what type of protocol we are getting, what type of licensing we are getting, and what kind of relationships we have with HP and Micro Focus. We can't say how much it will be based on that.

I cannot say because we are technical managers and I am not involved in any costing or pricing issues. I am not involved with any pricing.

I would rate the pricing a one out of five. It is expensive.

I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional a ten out of ten.

Without a doubt, it is an excellent product.