We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise and OpenText Silk Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."With Performance Center, the version upgrade is easy. You just have to roll out the new patch or the new version."
"I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself."
"What I like most in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the comparison between two different exhibitions which gives value to my company. I also like that the solution is user-friendly, especially in terms of making specific changes. For example, in the past, you can't see the changes when you upload scripts into the Performance Center, but now, it has that visibility, so whenever you want, you can change the script in the Performance Center. I also like that Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the only tool you can utilize for all your needs, even for different protocols and scripting. The solution also has the latest features, for example, networkability, where it can, within the UI, follow the waterfall model. You can use the insights in the Performance Center of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise to address or test URLs that usually take up much time."
"For me, LoadRunner stands out, especially with its reporting capabilities, the graphs that can be generated, and the unique feature of measuring our application's response alongside our infrastructure metrics, such as CPU, memory, or disk usage, all presented in graph form. This is something other applications struggle to match."
"With LoadRunner Enterprise, doing various types of performance testing, load testing, and automation testing has been very helpful for some of the teams."
"The fact that you can have tens of thousands of virtual users and just expand an army of load generators to hammer on whatever application you're testing."
"You can test a huge variety of applications, not just web-based systems, but SAP, Oracle, web services, pretty much anything out in the market place, but it's mobile-based testing."
"We haven't had an outage since we started using the solution."
"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"The process of upgrading LoadRunner can be difficult and time-consuming."
"More real-time monitoring should be available for the system under test."
"New features have been added in latest version and need to be improved with the DevOps integration."
"I have seen some users report some issues, but I have personally not had any issues."
"It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems."
"It would be good if we could look forward at the future technology needs we have. I would like to see Micro Focus provide more customer awareness around how LoadRunner can fulfill requirements with Big Data use cases, for example, where you do performance testing at the scale of data lakes... when it comes to technologies our company has yet to adopt, I would like to see an indication from Micro Focus of how one does performance testing and what kinds of challenges can we foresee. Those kinds of studies would really help us."
"The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and by including autocorrelation capability."
"For such an experienced team as mine, who have been with the product for over ten years, sometimes working with technical support is not that easy."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews while OpenText Silk Test is ranked 26th in Functional Testing Tools. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while OpenText Silk Test is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Silk Test writes "Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Apache JMeter, whereas OpenText Silk Test is most compared with Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, OpenText UFT Developer, Apache JMeter and froglogic Squish.
We monitor all Performance Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
