Likelihood to Recommend
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.
Read full review
I think QAComplete is a great way to organize the literal hundreds of development bugs that are discovered throughout an agile-based project. Teams aren't always able to hotfix items on the fly and this tool provides a great repository and facility for storing and prioritizing those technical debt items that may get overlooked from sprint to sprint. It also let's everyone on the team get a clear understanding for project progress.
Read full review Pros 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. Read full review Allows us to create individual tests then group them into comprehensive test plans. Allows me to specify custom fields that match our product features to categorize both tests and defects. Allows me to create a series of requirements then match tests against them for validation. Read full review Cons 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. Read full review The user interface can be somewhat perplexing and difficult to navigate at times. Naming conventions aren't always succinct and additional training is needed by those who have more experience using the program. A modern refresh of the UI would help keep the product from looking dated. Read full review Usability
I gave QAComplete this rating because though I do feel that it is a powerful tool, it's definitely not designed for the everyday user. Obviously the target demographic is QA specialists who should be team members that are very technical and methodical in their approaches. However, for the rest of the team, it can often time prove difficult to navigate. Also, the UI is in need of a serious refresh.
Read full review Support Rating
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.
Read full review
I have not had to work with their customer service directly yet. Our client has been utilizing this tool for years, so I would assume that the support they have received would be good enough to keep them wanting to continue to use the product.
Read full review Alternatives Considered
HP performance center stacks up very well for front end applications. Need more improvements for API performance testing.
Read full review
A comprehensive solution
Read full review Return on Investment 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. Read full review Helped us in increase the quality of our firmware releases. Helps us continuously improve our testing Read full review ScreenShots