Katalon Studio vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional

Free trial version is fine but you don't get the adequate support and VFM for the licensed version. Customer service needs to be improved a lot and any QA's with less technical background or less time to troubleshoot issues in the software on their own would find it difficult to use.

Micro Focus LoadRunner and its suite of tools, specifically VuGen works wonderfully for us for all web, http/https and web service calls. We've been able to build tests for near any scenario we need with relative ease. As long as we have crafted up requirements for our scenarios / scripts to managed scope, we've had high success working with scripting and data driving. Our main tests are web service calls - typically chained together to form a full scenario with transactions measuring the journey or a similar (measure along the way) journey through a browser. For web services we will use VuGen and browser we've shifted to Tru Client I have had little-to-no experience scripting against a thick client where a ui-driven test would be required. I know its possible but quite costly due to the need to run the actual desktop client to drive tests. We've been fortunate enough to leverage http calls to represent client traffic.

Incentivized

• Codeless test automation
• Integration with Web, Mobile, API and Desktop automation
• Possibility of end to end test automation using CI tools
• Assistance provided during the coding

Incentivized

• It can simulate multiple users at the same time and help understand the performance.
• It can generate excellent reports and give insights into application performance.
• It is a fast tool and does not take time to perform its functions.

Incentivized

• Katalon Studio supports only grovvy language for now. It will be nice to see support for other scripting languages.
• Performance issues; sudden crash of the tool.
• Debug button is provided only to licensed owner since Katalon 7+ version.
• New tool, few resources available to learn. So there is a mild learning curve here.

Incentivized

• HP LoadRunner with new patches and releases sometimes makes no longer support older version of various protocols like Citrix, which makes the task time-consuming when using older versions of LoadRunner for some of the cases. So it should support older version as well while upgrading.
• Configuring HP LoadRunner over the firewall involves lots of configuration and may be troublesome. So, there should be a script (power shell script for Windows or shell script for Linux users) to make it easy to use and with less pain.
• I would like to see the RunTime Viewer of Vugen in HPLoadRunner based on the browser I selected in the run-time configuration to make it feel more realistic as a real user.
• Licensing cost is very high when we need to perform a test on application for a specific group of users.

Incentivized

Due to the slowness, there is an intermediate timeout. There is no other problem.

Incentivized

I love the support. They have provided answers and solutions for most of our questions or doubts that could come up. They also have provided basic tutorials on how to get familiarized with the program.

Incentivized

Customer service is not that great. It's difficult to get hold of someone if an issue is supposed to be addressed on an urgent basis. No online chat service readily available.

Incentivized

Katalon Studio License cost is reasonable and it suits the budget where as other tools are expensive and its difficult to get right ROI. Capabilities are user friendly while using the Katalon Studio for api, mobile , web and desktop application automation where as expensive fails to provide certain basic user friendly factors

Incentivized

HP performance center stacks up very well for front end applications. Need more improvements for API performance testing.

Incentivized

• No License fee: it saves a license fee which has paid for other tools.
• Able to create a Jenkins pipeline for DevOps saving sufficient time by running nightly.
• The manual tester can also automate making testing becomes faster.

Incentivized

• The scripts created with traditional web/http protocol are not robust thus re-scripting is required after most every code drop. Troubleshooting and fixing the issue takes more time therefore in most cases we do re-scripting to keep it simple and save time.
• In ideal world you would rather spend more time doing testing than scripting in that case mostly you could use an Ajax TruClient protocol. This type of script will only fail when an object in the application is removed or changed completely. This way of scripting will save you more time and helps you maintain the scripts with less re-work effort on a release basis. On the long run you will have a better ROI when you use Ajax TruClient protocol for scripting.

Incentivized