OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) Reviews

We use OpenText LoadRunner Professional primarily for performance testing. We are able to test applications with various user loads and scenarios.

The use of the virtual table server feature allowed us to invoke calls to the database and pull data during execution, providing valuable insights during our testing phases. However, this feature was revoked in 2015, and its absence has been noticed.

One of the most valuable features of LoadRunner Professional is the wide range of protocols it supports, especially the web user v user types. These features help it maintain a significant market share.

Technical support needs to be faster, and the pricing should be more competitive. The virtual table server feature should be reintroduced. Some AI capabilities should be added. There should be an 'analyze the application' feature to recommend which protocol to use for recording.

I have been working with LoadRunner Professional for 18 years.

The product is stable when it comes to handling multi-user scenarios and performance testing.

There are no issues regarding scalability; the product handles multi-user scenarios well.

Recently, the technical support has been very bad. There is no appropriate response, and if I send a query, I get a response after one month. No one is there to respond to our queries quickly.

Neutral

I do not see a return on investment (ROI) with LoadRunner Professional, although with placement, I do see some ROI.

The pricing should be reduced and made more competitive.

If the use case is strictly web applications, I would recommend BlazeMeter over LoadRunner Professional. For SAP-based applications and newer tech stacks that JMeter or BlazeMeter cannot support, LoadRunner Professional would be recommended.

If companies have complete web applications, I would not recommend LoadRunner Professional. For SAP-based applications and specific scenarios where other tools might fall short, LoadRunner Professional is advisable. Improvements are needed in technical support, pricing, and adding AI features.

I'd rate the solution six out of ten.

The main purpose is to simulate realistic scenarios to define and test the performance of different solutions or applications. For example, if there is a project to launch, a mobile app, and you want to see how it's going to perform when it is used by multiple users, OpenText LoadRunner will provide in-depth reports on potential performance bottlenecks and issues.

Its variety of testing tools for different applications is of great benefit, as well as its integration capabilities with other testing and monitoring solutions.

Compared to some other vendors, there is a lack of community support. It affects the response time when certain information is needed and not many resources are available. 

I have been utilizing OpenText LoadRunner Professional for four years. 

It demonstrates exceptional stability and reliability. I would rate it ten out of ten. 

It is a very scalable solution that supports a wide range of application types and can handle increasing load demands. I would rate it nine out of ten.

I would rate it six out of ten.

Neutral

I was using JMeter previously, it works on a similar basis. LoadRunner has an issue with its limited support, while JMeter has an open source, and it is easy to integrate with different solutions. The downside of the JMeter is that it is inefficient to detect threats in large-scale applications.

The initial setup was fairly easy. I would rate it eight out of ten.

The deployment of the solution was seamless and done very fast, as we only had to install the frame test server. 

It is a high-cost investment, particularly for companies with small budgets or limited testing needs. 

OpenText LoadRunner Professional aligns well with the specific requirements. I would rate it eight out of ten.

The product gives protocol support to our organization. It is the biggest benefit.

It's a good tool. The solution supports a lot of protocols. The interface is good.

The solution is complex. Integrating the tool into CI/CD pipelines, dockerizing, and containerization is a bit difficult. It is not as easy and user-friendly as doing it in Locust and Gatling. The solution must be more user-friendly. It should provide integrations with Jenkins or GitHub Actions.

Processes like docking and containerization must be made easy for a tester to do the process. If a process takes ten steps, it must be reduced to two to three steps. We should be able to integrate with Docker, Jenkins, or GitHub within two to three steps.

I have been working with the solution for six months.

The tool is stable.

The solution is scalable. We would need more machines based on our script complexity, based on which we need to assess how many load generators we need to run. We can support the cloud load generators if we have a cloud account. Otherwise, we can choose k6 or Gatling because they support more virtual users for a given hardware resource. It is a simple web application. We can choose open-source tools rather than using a paid load testing tool.

Support is very good. I rate the technical support around eight or nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is not complex. We will be able to install it, but it will take a lot of steps. Open-source tools take two to three steps, while paid tools take eight to ten steps for deployment. The implementation is user-friendly.

I have been using the paid version of the product.

Nowadays, most of the features supported by LoadRunner can be obtained in JMeter. Many development-driven tools like Locust are coming up in the market, which are easy to integrate with CI/CD tools. Dockerizing, containerization, and running the performance test through the CI/CD pipeline are pretty much easier with development-driven tools like Locust and Gatling.

LoadRunner and WebLOAD support a lot of protocols that other open-source tools are not able to support. However, most features supported by these tools are available in the latest tools. Correlation can be done within five to ten minutes in LoadRunner. Whereas, in JMeter, it would take half an hour. JMeter’s UI is simple compared to LoadRunner’s.

To start working on performance testing, we need to use LoadRunner to understand all the concepts. LoadRunner helps us understand how the actual user distribution happens. After using LoadRunner, we can work on JMeter. JMeter doesn't have any script writing so we can manage it with the elements in the tool. Later, we can shift to any of the developer version tools.

Overall, I rate the solution an 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.

Scaling is definitely one of the best features of this solution. There are no issues scaling to 10,000 or 20,000 concurrent users.

This tool gives you a lot of options. It gives you hyper correlation, etc., requiring much lower programming scans. It's very user-friendly.

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional supports other tools and protocols, such as SAP, Citrix, web services, etc.

Analyses are more in-depth and more detailed, and slicing and dicing is very easy. You can pinpoint load APIs at any point in time. You can know what was happening at a specific minute with regard to your requests, headers, response time, exceptions, etc. It has great reporting capabilities.

In terms of resource management, you need a lot of high capacity boxes if you need to generate a load of 1,000 or 2,000 users.

This solution has AJAX protocol or TruClient protocol, which gives you frontend stats and web vitals with very few details. This could be integrated further to exactly map any other leading tools for frontend analysis. That is, it needs further enhancements.

Easy maintenance would be good because now if you want to upgrade the version from X to Y, it takes a couple of days. There has to be downtime as well. Operation processes should be faster and should not have an impact for more than a couple of hours.

I've been using it for more than eight years.

Technical support is very good. We have a dedicated POC for Micro Focus. Although we have to follow the process of submitting tickets and waiting for a response, if it's a P zero issue, then we can directly connect with the technical person who has been allocated to us.

The SaaS version is quick and easy to set up. The on-premises version has a lot of challenges, especially related to the DB. You need to have a particular DB version to store the user data. Also, you have to depend on additional licensing from a database side. For instance, if you have Oracle, then you would need an additional license for the Oracle user.

The licensing is on a yearly basis and is relatively expensive.

If your team doesn't have much exposure to the development side, this is a good solution because you don't need much customization. You get a lot of automated features.

I would definitely recommend choosing the SaaS option rather than the on-premises option. The on-premises version has a lot of issues. For example, I'm dealing with version 12.63, and very soon, this particular version will be obsolete in terms of support. You will have to keep updating it in order to get the support for your version.

If you're looking for a tool which gives you more insight and you're ready to pay some extra dollars for it, then you should go for Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional. However, if you need a simple, aim-and-shoot tool for load testing and getting stats out, then you probably don't need this tool that has an expensive license.

Apart from the cost, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is one of the natural product choices in the industry. So, I would rate it at nine out of ten. If the cost were relatively lower, then I would've given it a ten.

LoadRunner handles the testing of complex multi-user scenarios. It was not complex. It's pretty easy. 

The reports have been effective in identifying system bottlenecks. It offers very good reports.

Sometimes when we were migrating from one version to another, some of our scripts started failing. And configuration-wise, we used to get support since we had the license with us. We used to just connect with Micro Focus, and the turnaround time was very less. It was very fast.

With my understanding and experience, for future releases, I suggest some correlation features that had to be tuned from the tool because, for SAP applications, capturing dynamic values from the responses and other technical things still had to be done manually.

In my previous job, I worked with OpenText LoadRunner Professional.

I used it for almost 14 years. 

Around 14 people used it. 

There were some technical challenges, but the support was pretty good.

They could work on some more things because there are some more complex applications, like SAP applications, wherein some of the challenges were capturing dynamic values and other things that had to be done manually.

Positive

I already put forth the proposal for LoadRunner Professional in my current company. 

The implementation was very straightforward and not an issue. To get comfortable with LoadRunner, it was just three to four months for me. 

Within four to five months, I was totally comfortable with it and started doing all the activities.

The license was a bit expensive. That was the reason we used to depend on the customer to fund it.  

I would recommend it to other users. I recommend LoadRunner for every company where performance testing is considered a key value.

Because I have some experiences wherein some companies will not consider performance itself as their key thing. So wherever performance is being concentrated, I'll propose LoadRunner as the first thing.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

We use the solution to help customers test web applications. 

I am impressed with the tool's correlation function. 

I would like the solution to include monitoring capacity. 

I have been working with the product for more than 10 years. 

I would rate the solution's stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten. We have around 1000 virtual users for the product. 

I would rate the product's setup a nine out of ten. It's easy and straightforward. The tool's deployment took one hour to complete. 

I would rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the product a nine out of ten.