Kobiton vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs. WebLOAD

When it comes to doing or performing testing on the applications or devices then Kobiton is the best option to go forward with. Kobiton is best for both manual and automation testing. It also comes with great features like appium scripts generation which really useful and less time-consuming and makes it really good to go with.

Incentivized

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

WebLOAD is an imperative tool for our web manager and developers team. We rely heavily on this in our daily activities, mainly to run script testing (in record time) of new code prior to our build releases. This product helps us identify potential gaps and issues with the user flow and allows us to make adjustments and fix problems before they make it into the live production site. Our team also depends on this software to run multiple load testing of each server in preparation for heavy timeframes of the year, such as Cyber Monday, Black Friday, etc. Our team members brought up that they would love to see more scripting examples of how to use WebLOAD, which would make their job easier.

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

• Load testing of increased traffic during peak hours
• Reporting of script runs before new code releases
• Identifies issues and problems with the code before this makes it into the live site

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

• The load time of running a testing script can be long at times
• It would be helpful to have multiple users/ devices to run under one membership

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

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

Incentivized

There are many similar comparable products on the market, but with WebLOAD, the price point was reasonable. Their sales and engineering teams and very friendly and helpful and make our implementation a breeze. I would definitely renew our contract and recommend this to anyone out there looking for the best load-testing tool!

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

• Increased ROI by discovering any performance issues ahead of time, and allowing us to fix them before making it into production.
• Improved efficiencies with DevOps.
• Increased productivity through the automated reports feature.

Incentivized