OpenText LoadRunner Professional

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
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
OpenText LoadRunner Professional
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
LoadRunner Professional
Free Trial
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup fee
Additional Details—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
OpenText LoadRunner Professional
Considered Both Products
LoadRunner Professional
Chose OpenText LoadRunner Professional
Micro Focus LoadRunner fit well into our portfolio of tools with its long track record, ability to test near any application technology we adopt and allow for a single / cohesive toolset to drive our performance testing needs.
Chose OpenText LoadRunner Professional
While soasta is currently being used for cloud related applications, LR is specifically used to address the load testing on on-premise servers in our case.
Chose OpenText LoadRunner Professional
Loadrunner stacks up very well against these tools. All software have certain very strong features and that is what differentiates LoadRunner from all of these. It has accurate results and data. Reports are also very well formatted. Different data can be integrated and other …
Chose OpenText LoadRunner Professional
The biggest point of using HP LoadRunner is the response time numbers captured after executing the tests were more accurate when we generated the same by using tools like JMeter or NeoLoad though it involves a certain licensing cost but what [we] needed was trust and accuracy …
Chose OpenText LoadRunner Professional
HP performance center stacks up very well for front end applications. Need more improvements for API performance testing.
Chose OpenText LoadRunner Professional
Most of the above tools are pretty popular in the industry. These are tools that are way cheaper compared to the industry giant LoadRunner. Yet these tools have their own limitations and drawbacks. In BlazeMeter the user load cannot be modified during the test run. JMeter and Bl…
Chose OpenText LoadRunner Professional
It was faster to script in HP LoadRunner than in JMeter. The main issue is the expense involved in the cost of the virtual users in HP LoadRunner. In time, it may be more cost effective to switch to JMeter when the number of virtual users increases.
Top Pros
Top Cons
Features
OpenText LoadRunner Professional
Load Testing
Comparison of Load Testing features of Product A and Product B
OpenText LoadRunner Professional
8.4
6 Ratings
0% below category average
End to end performance management9.06 Ratings
Integrated performance data10.06 Ratings
Deployment model flexibility9.06 Ratings
Real time monitoring6.15 Ratings
Automated anomaly detection8.05 Ratings
Best Alternatives
OpenText LoadRunner Professional
Small Businesses

No answers on this topic

Medium-sized Companies
JMeter
JMeter
Score 8.5 out of 10
Enterprises
JMeter
JMeter
Score 8.5 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
OpenText LoadRunner Professional
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(7 ratings)
Support Rating
3.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
OpenText LoadRunner Professional
Likelihood to Recommend
OpenText
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
Pros
OpenText
  • 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
Cons
OpenText
  • 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
Support Rating
OpenText
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
Alternatives Considered
OpenText
HP performance center stacks up very well for front end applications. Need more improvements for API performance testing.
Read full review
Return on Investment
OpenText
  • 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
ScreenShots