We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise and OpenText Silk Performer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Load Testing Tools."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."
"The solution offers helpful guidelines and has good documentation."
"I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself."
"We have a centralized delivery team and we are able to meet enterprise requirements, which include different types of protocols that are involved, including scripting. The technology supports that and enables us to have a wider range of testing. Enterprise-level testing is something that we are satisfied with."
"It allows you to work out how well you are doing project-wise because you see the number of scripts done, the number of tests run, and whether you have mapped all your requirements to it."
"The solution supports a number of protocols."
"The most valuable aspect of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the overall support it has for a lot of different applications and defined domains."
"With Performance Center, the version upgrade is easy. You just have to roll out the new patch or the new version."
"A good monitoring tool, simple to script and easy to configure."
"I believe the data that demonstrates the automated correlations should be corrected."
"The solution is a very expensive tool when compared with other tools."
"The price of this solution could be less expensive. However, this category of solutions is expensive."
"On the newer versions, I think the bleeding edge is still being worked on."
"We are expecting more flexible to use Jenkins in continuous integration going forward."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, I need to spend a lot of time training people, while on other low-code or no-code platforms, I need not invest that much time."
"The cost of the solution is high and can be improved."
"OpenText needs to improve in terms of support. With the same support plan but when the product was owned by HP, support was more responsive and better coordinated."
"If you have a large amount of data, the solution can struggle."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Load Testing Tools with 81 reviews while OpenText Silk Performer is ranked 11th in Load Testing Tools with 1 review. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4, while OpenText Silk Performer is rated 8.0. 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 Performer writes "Scripting and basic test executions are good features; configuring the workload for tests is easy". OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Tricentis NeoLoad, Apache JMeter and OpenText ALM / Quality Center, whereas OpenText Silk Performer is most compared with Apache JMeter.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.