We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Oracle Application Testing Suite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"The capabilities and flexibility of the Controller, the ability to monitor the systems under test, and the comprehensive results Analysis which saves a great deal of time."
"LoadRunner is a very sophisticated tool, and I can use many languages. For example, I can use Java. I can use C++. I can test the Internet of Things, FTP, mail, and Active Directory. It is very useful."
"My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs."
"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"Enables us to test most of the products and projects that we have across all the different technologies, without having to look at other tools."
"It has features for recording. The best feature with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is that there is very little bottleneck or overhead issues. With LoadRunner, you can spawn 2000 contributions for one machine."
"A very comprehensive tool that is good for performance testing."
"User friendly UI / Tree view to work with adding steps."
"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite's most valuable feature is it works very smoothly with all Oracle Java-based applications."
"We like that we don't need a separate management tool. This is a good feature. It also has an inbuilt performance tool which is on Flash. It has very good record and playback feature as well. The inspection tool is also very good. Overall, since it comes with all the three packages, it's very good."
"OpenScript has many features that make it useful, including the ability to record and playback."
"The most valuable feature is the object identification feature."
"The solution is scalable."
"The pricing model, selling model, and business model need to be adjusted. For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost."
"The product is pretty heavy and should be more lightweight."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"I would like the solution to include monitoring capacity."
"Licensing costs could be reduced."
"If the support of the protocols was the same throughout the other protocols and it was there evenly, then I would rate the product higher."
"IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on."
"The initial start-up of Micro Focus LoadRunner could be improved. When we add 20 or 30 scripts, the refresh is completed one by one. I would like to be able to select all the script at one time, so it can be completed in a single click, reducing the time required."
"I have faced issues with some indexing items."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite could improve by offering desktop-based application automation. It is lacking in this area at the moment."
"We would like to see the instruction documentation made into video or audio formats, to help new users get used to the modules."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite does encounter some lag. When I am trying to record something, the tool gets stuck."
"The dashboards need to be simplified and made more user-friendly."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Oracle Application Testing Suite Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews while Oracle Application Testing Suite is ranked 9th in Performance Testing Tools with 24 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while Oracle Application Testing Suite is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Application Testing Suite writes "Requires little maintenance, is stable, and easy to deploy". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and RadView WebLOAD, whereas Oracle Application Testing Suite is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One, Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio and Tricentis NeoLoad. See our OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
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.