OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs. Visual Studio Test Professional

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

It would be well suited if we used it with Azure DevOps as we can effortlessly integrate the test cases and even stories or tasks to stay on track with our work. Those test cases can even be reused across multiple projects. Using any other third-party tools, such as Jira, can be less appropriate, as it's not a Microsoft tool, and its capabilities will be limited.

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

• Availability of the desktop client or the web interface. The web interface being the favorite and providing a better experience.
• It enables you to write unit tests with so much ease.
• Allows the recording and repeating of manual tests
• It can be set up for collaboration.

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 user community of the Visual Studio Test product is weak. For instant problems with this product, it is necessary to quickly reach the source of the error.
• Licence fees need to be more reasonable. License prices need to be reduced so that they can easily compete with free testing tools.

Incentivized

It is very usable if you are familiar with Visual Studio to begin with. If you are new to the interface, it can be a long ramp up period for Testers not used to the GUI. There is always the web option which seems to be more intuitive for many Testers.

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

Visual Studio Test Professional is backed up by the full support of the Microsoft Corporation. That means twenty-four/seven customer support by quality, highly-trained professionals who understand every possible issue that you have experienced before. They are nice, efficient, and highly professional. I recommend them.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

The visual Studio Test tool is faster than other tools. Since the development and testing processes are in one tool, it is more profitable in terms of cost. It is more inconvenient to write a test case in DevOps.

• 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

• One of the positive ROIs of Visual Studios is the fact that it makes producing our work at a quick rate, things like Intellisense make our work get produced at a much higher rate which is good for our return of investment.
• Testing by the developers has increased by 23%, we now take the time to actually test our product before we send it to our QA people.
• I am not aware of any negative ROI aspects to our company that have been found.

Incentivized