SmartBear LoadComplete is a performance, stress and load testing tool for web and Rich Internet Applications, including ASP.NET, Ajax, Flash/Flex and Silverlight.
$287
one-time fee
LoadRunner Professional
Score 8.6 out of 10
N/A
A solution simplifies performance load testing for colocated teams. With project-based capabilities, so teams can quickly identify abnormal application behavior.
N/A
Pricing
LoadComplete
OpenText LoadRunner Professional
Editions & Modules
Subscription Starter
$239
per month 100 virtual users
On-demand Starter
$287
one-time fee 100 virtual users
Subscription Pro
$699
per month 1000 virtual users
On-demand Pro
$887
one-time fee 1000 virtual users
Subscription Premium
$899
per month 2500 virtual users
On-demand Premium
$1,139
one-time fee 2500 virtual users
Enterprise
Let's chat
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
LoadComplete
LoadRunner Professional
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
On-demand plans contain a $4.99 monthly maintenance fee.
Most of Load testing tools are similar, But Load Complete is very easy to use and the GUI is good enough and comfort for the eyes. Despite JMeter has more features for Complex Scenarios (for example Scripting ) and is free to use, but Load Complete covers all the Quality Aspects …
If you are testing an application and you don't have experience in performance testing, this tool will help you to test the load with some documentation help. It's very easy to use. and if you have complex scenarios to determine the coding and adjusting graphs, the LoadComplete will not be a helpful tool for you.
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.
We have been using LoadComplete in the Tech Department. I usually use LoadComplete to test the speed and loads of several applications we develop in-house.
Moreover, we have also used LoadComplete to create reports and at the same time report any issues that we notice during a certain load.
It is an affordable platform.
LoadComplete has a lot of good features which has made my life so much easier so there are many pros of this tool as well. It is quite easy to use and comes in very handy.
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.
Usability is really good because being an enterprise tool that might be an easy option to convince users to try this tool. It has a lot of easy-to-use, cool options.
Customer support is good. If any concerns are raised, they are usually resolved soon, but when questioned about a feature LoadComplete does not support, it usually takes more time to resolve.
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.
We chose loadcomplete because we already use SmartBear software for other automation solutions. Porting over test cases is easy and a user can have a test up and running within minutes. I do wish SmartBear would have better support and I haven't used any other testing tool in a while to make a comparison.
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.
